URGENT. PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
booton...@bvc.edu
Could anybody help me find my coat of arms. If so i would be greatful.
Thanks.
Sev Booton , but my real name is Donald Fredrick
Vangerkin the 3rd.
Jerry Minnis
> Could anybody help me find my coat of arms. If so i would be greatful.
>Thanks.
> Sev Booton , but my real name is Donald Fredrick
>Vangerkin the 3rd.
Unless you can do the genealogical work to prove you are the eldest son of the
eldest son, etc., of an armiger, then you do not have a coat of arms. With
very limited exceptions (mostly in Germany with Burgher arms, and Poland with
Herb arms) arms were only granted to an individual, not families.
Dairmid
Francois Velde
: Unless you can do the genealogical work to prove you are the eldest son of the
: eldest son, etc., of an armiger, then you do not have a coat of arms. With
: very limited exceptions (mostly in Germany with Burgher arms, and Poland with
: Herb arms) arms were only granted to an individual, not families.
This is becoming tiresome. Do we have to rehash this over and over again?
In actual practice, since the 16th c., and in most of Europe except Britain,
differencing was not practiced except by the most important families, and
arms were, for all intents and purposes, family arms, to be used like a
family name. The Polish example is not even correct, since Herbs were
clans, not families.
I do not see the usefulness of parroting such supercilious theories when
the actual practice was so different. All it does is turn off people
who might otherwise be interested in heraldry. The one thing that should
be insisted upon is that some bona fide genealogical connection be established
with an individual or family bearing the coat in question.
The major exception is the UK, of course. Whether Americans should even bother
with UK regulations is open to question.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhu.edu
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
> Dear whoever it may concern,
>
> Could anybody help me find my coat of arms. If so i would be greatful.
>Thanks.
You've probably misplaced among your coats of paint.
Klaus O K
Louis Epstein
: > Could anybody help me find my coat of arms. If so i would be greatful.
: >Thanks.
: > Sev Booton , but my real name is Donald Fredrick
: >Vangerkin the 3rd.
: Unless you can do the genealogical work to prove you are the eldest son of the
: eldest son, etc., of an armiger, then you do not have a coat of arms. With
: very limited exceptions (mostly in Germany with Burgher arms, and Poland with
: Herb arms) arms were only granted to an individual, not families.
Even with cadency marks??
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> The major exception is the UK, of course. Whether Americans should even bother
> with UK regulations is open to question.
What are you saying here, Francois?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Cracroft-Brennan EMail in...@londwill.demon.co.uk |
| The London Will Company Specialist Will Writers Tel:0181 563 2500 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Velde
:ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU (Francois Velde) writes:
:
:> The major exception is the UK, of course. Whether Americans should even bother
:> with UK regulations is open to question.
:
: What are you saying here, Francois?
Very often, queries of this type (what are my coat of arms) come from
Americans. Suppose their ancestry leads them to a French or Italian
or Dutch armiger, since those countries haven't had systematic differencing
for a long time, it would be pedantic (and impractical) to recommend
against any use of the arms ("you're not entitled to it") or recommend
differencing the original coat N times to reflect the American's distance
from the main line. Suppose the ancestry leads them to a British
armiger: would I recommend that, in this instance, they renounce to
the use of the undifferenced arms if they are not head of the family?
I'm not sure I would. Why apply the rules of the College of Arms to
people who are outside of its jurisdiction? America, by default, is
like most countries, a country where arms are unregulated, freely
assumed. The majority of its citizens come from countries with
either no heraldry, or an unregulated one. Why would British rules
be presumed to apply here, more than, say, German or Scandinavian
rules (or absence thereof)?
If the American can prove filiation to a British armiger, they can
petition the College of Arms for a grant (I think I've got that
right, corrections welcome as usual). So there is, in this case,
the option of paying $3000 if they wish, and I would certainly
present that option alongside the other.
I said "open to question" and I have no firm opinion on this matter.
The firm opinion I do have is that the blanket answer that, in order
to use a coat of arms, you have to prove filiation *and* that you
are the eldest of the eldest line is, in my opinion, completely
inaccurate, and reflects either a strong theoretical bias, or a
lack of familiarity with non-British practices.
Anton Sherwood
: > Dear whoever it may concern,
Does it concern anyone here?
: > Could anybody help me find my coat of arms. If so i would be greatful.
: >Thanks.
Klaus Ole Kristiansen <kl...@diku.dk> says:
: You've probably misplaced among your coats of paint.
Or maybe it walked off, like my favorite sweater - a visitor thought
it belonged to someone else. If the matter really is urgent, this is
bad news; it took a month or two to recover the sweater.
--
disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"The Federal Government has become so large and powerful that it poses
an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."
39% agree (42% of self-identified liberals). -- CNN/Gallup poll
Matt Wilson
> I said "open to question" and I have no firm opinion on this matter.
> The firm opinion I do have is that the blanket answer that, in order
> to use a coat of arms, you have to prove filiation *and* that you
> are the eldest of the eldest line is, in my opinion, completely
> inaccurate, and reflects either a strong theoretical bias, or a
> lack of familiarity with non-British practices.
>
> --
> Francois Velde
> Johns Hopkins University
> ve...@jhu.edu
Thank you Francois!!
I often see people who do not know about heraldry getting castigated on this
group for asking 'Do I have a coat of arms?'
We were all learners once, and people getting wound up about cadency and
rights to bear arms should bear this in mind when they moan at newbies. I'm
not disputing these ideas here, but I do dislike seeing them used as a
weapon against people who express curiosity about heraldry.
I think we all agree here that heraldry is a colourful and interesting part
of history, that encompasses many of the prevailing ideas around at the time
of its inception and widespread
use. Initially, subjects like cadency just aren't very interesting to the
beginner. Alright, I'll admit it, after five years of painting heraldry
full-time I STILL don't find marks of cadency interesting!
Anyway, in giving someone details of arms granted to someone with the same
surname, you could be getting them involved in the subject we all enjoy.
Obviously, to sell them off as 'their' arms is wrong, but as Francois points
out, there is no law against adopting arms in America. Perhaps someone may
want an adaptation of one of their possible ancestors arms in a business
logo, for example. So come on, everyone, let's try to be a little more
understanding!!
I would say, however, PLEASE DONT SHOUT 'URGENT' IN YOUR SUBJECT LINE!!
--
Matt Wilson
Heraldic Artist
Heraldry Web Page in progress (http://www.demon.co.uk/Mattw/)
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Americans. Suppose their ancestry leads them to a French or Italian
> or Dutch armiger, since those countries haven't had systematic differencing
> for a long time, it would be pedantic (and impractical) to recommend
> against any use of the arms ("you're not entitled to it") or recommend
> differencing the original coat N times to reflect the American's distance
> from the main line. Suppose the ancestry leads them to a British
> armiger: would I recommend that, in this instance, they renounce to
> the use of the undifferenced arms if they are not head of the family?
> I'm not sure I would. Why apply the rules of the College of Arms to
> people who are outside of its jurisdiction? America, by default, is
> like most countries, a country where arms are unregulated, freely
> assumed. The majority of its citizens come from countries with
> either no heraldry, or an unregulated one. Why would British rules
> be presumed to apply here, more than, say, German or Scandinavian
> rules (or absence thereof)?
>
> If the American can prove filiation to a British armiger, they can
> petition the College of Arms for a grant (I think I've got that
> right, corrections welcome as usual). So there is, in this case,
> the option of paying $3000 if they wish, and I would certainly
> present that option alongside the other.
>
> The firm opinion I do have is that the blanket answer that, in order
> to use a coat of arms, you have to prove filiation *and* that you
> are the eldest of the eldest line is, in my opinion, completely
> inaccurate, and reflects either a strong theoretical bias, or a
> lack of familiarity with non-British practices.
>
someone who has a recognised coat-of-arms and so, inevitably,
is more than a little biased!!!!
I cannot feel that it is right for anyone to be allowed to "assume" a
coat of arms, notwithstanding that this was so done in the early
medieval period. Putting aside the question of "burgher arms",
the possession of a coat-of-arms is, depending on your view
point, either open proof of one's nobility or at the very least an
hereditable honour granted by the Crown (I use the word 'honour'
very loosely!). Whatever one's viewpoint it confers a certain
status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
It is not, therefore, an amusing decorative for someone to
adopt on a mere whim. If any Tom, Dick or Harry were to be
allowed to adopt arms then it would debase the whole currency
of a coat-of-arms.
In the United Kingdom the right to "ownership" of arms is protected
in law......the Court of Chivalry might or might not be effective but the
Lyon Court most certainly is.
Given that it confers an hereditary right, I do not personally think that
$3,000 for a coat of arms is an unreasonable sum of money to pay....
but no doubt I will be shot down in flames for saying that!
Simon Kershaw
>I cannot feel that it is right for anyone to be allowed to "assume" a
>coat of arms, notwithstanding that this was so done in the early
>medieval period. Putting aside the question of "burgher arms",
>the possession of a coat-of-arms is, depending on your view
>point, either open proof of one's nobility or at the very least an
>hereditable honour granted by the Crown (I use the word 'honour'
>very loosely!). Whatever one's viewpoint it confers a certain
>status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
granted by the British Crown?
>It is not, therefore, an amusing decorative for someone to
>adopt on a mere whim. If any Tom, Dick or Harry were to be
>allowed to adopt arms then it would debase the whole currency
>of a coat-of-arms.
A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
The state regulates the adoption of arms to prevent duplication: there
is little other justification for such a state monopoly.
>In the United Kingdom the right to "ownership" of arms is protected
>in law......the Court of Chivalry might or might not be effective but the
>Lyon Court most certainly is.
>Given that it confers an hereditary right, I do not personally think that
>$3,000 for a coat of arms is an unreasonable sum of money to pay....
>but no doubt I will be shot down in flames for saying that!
One is, of course, not allowed to pay for other hereditary honours
granted by the Crown. That one must pay a significant amount of money
for a grant of arms, debases armory, in my view.
(I don't dispute that one should pay appropriate fees for pretty
letters patent and other artwork, and for necessary design and searches
etc. But I'm unconvinced that such significant (not enormous, but
still significant) sums should be necessary to *purchase* a coat of
arms.)
I have renamed this thread with a more apposite title than the rather
ridiculous URGENT.
--
simon
Simon....@Smallworld.co.uk (work)
s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk (home)
Rideau Herald
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>I cannot feel that it is right for anyone to be allowed to "assume" a
>>coat of arms, notwithstanding that this was so done in the early
>>medieval period...<snip>... Whatever one's viewpoint it confers a certain
>>status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
>Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
>nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
>granted by the British Crown?
>>It is not, therefore, an amusing decorative for someone to
>>adopt on a mere whim. If any Tom, Dick or Harry were to be
>>allowed to adopt arms then it would debase the whole currency
>>of a coat-of-arms.
>A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
>certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
>properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
>The state regulates the adoption of arms to prevent duplication: there
>is little other justification for such a state monopoly.
Surely heraldic regulation has a greater purpose than this - the trademarks
office could deal with simple duplication or copywrite infringement. Surely
it is desirable that there be systematic approach to design, inclusion of
elements and usage of arms, and protection of certain symbols. If arms are to
signify identity they should do so unambiguously and meaningfully. While I
agree that the right to obtain arms should not be unduly restrictive, that
hardly means they should be able to create whatever arms they choose.
That includes unregulated areas like the US. While there is nothing to
prevent someone there from designing arms including various nations' symbols
and royal emblems they should be discouraged from doing so by those who care
and believe in the system, and encouraged to create their own distinctive and
meaningful design.
There has to be a middle ground between trying to impose other countries'
systems extra-territorially (although we all have the US do that to us from
time to time) and accepting a free-for-all, where every t-shirt designer feels
free to create whatever arms you want. I know it can't be legally prevented
but it ought not to be accepted as harmless.
Rideau Herald
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Kershaw) writes:
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >I cannot feel that it is right for anyone to be allowed to "assume" a
> >coat of arms, notwithstanding that this was so done in the early
> >the possession of a coat-of-arms is, depending on your view
> >point, either open proof of one's nobility or at the very least an
> >hereditable honour granted by the Crown (I use the word 'honour'
> >status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
>
> Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
> nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
> granted by the British Crown?
>
OK...as an example, in Scotland the grant of a coat of arms says quite plainly
that the grantee is then to be regarded as a member of the noblesse of Scotland.
The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a grant
of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility. If an American were to go round saying
that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would be a clear case of
passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a coat of
arms is in my book exactly the same.
> A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
> certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
> properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
If he is not of sufficient rank to be granted arms then it is wrong for him
to assume them....he should apply to a competant authority for a grant.
Anyway, when's the last time you tried to send a sealed letter through
the post? The wax gets all ruined and look really messy when it gets
there.........
> The state regulates the adoption of arms to prevent duplication: there
> is little other justification for such a state monopoly.
>
This, of course, is the position with matriculation in Scotland.
> (I don't dispute that one should pay appropriate fees for pretty
> letters patent and other artwork, and for necessary design and searches
> etc. But I'm unconvinced that such significant (not enormous, but
> still significant) sums should be necessary to *purchase* a coat of
> arms.)
I can only speak for the College. The fee has to be split many ways
to pay for the College and its staff (this is, after all, the College's sole
source of income) and in this day and age the fees are not
excessive.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a
> > grant of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility. If an American were to
> > go round saying that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would
> > be a clear case of passing himself off to be something that he plainly
> > wasn't.....to assume a coat of arms is in my book exactly the same.
>
> Unicorn Park --- rather silly, perhaps, but (speaking as an American) I
> wouldn't call it offensive! (Actually, us SCA types use the latter sort of
> title rather a lot....)
Hmm...bizarre to say the least!!!!
--
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : OK...as an example, in Scotland the grant of a coat of arms says quite plainly
> : that the grantee is then to be regarded as a member of the noblesse of Scotland.
>
> governing the Lord Lyon. It gives him the powers to grant arms. I am
> not aware that it gives him the power (delegated or otherwise) to create
> new members of the nobility. If he really IS selling patents of
> nobility, then I say we have him charged under the Sale of Honours Act. :-)
I think you're missing the point slightly here. The Lord Lyon is not only a Minister
of the Crown but also a judge of the realm, and almost all Scottish heraldic
business is today conducted on judicial lines through the machinery of the
Court of the Lord Lyon which exercises both a covil and a penal jurisdiction
under Scottish common law and a series of Acts of Parliament. In this the Lyon
Court differs considerably from the English College of Arms. It was, and is, a
part of the Scottish judicial system and functions entirely as a court of law.
The first legislative encactment which directly bestows on Lyon a jusrisdiction
in questions of armorial bearings was a Stature of 1592 which empoered him to
inspect the arms of noblemen, barons, and gentlemen to distinguish them with
proper differences, to matriculate them in his Register , and "to put inhibition
to all the common sort of people not worthy by the law of arms to bear any signs
armorial". His jurisdiction was morefully set out following the Restoration in an
Act of 1661, but this was repealed the following year. A further Act of 1672
renewed and confirmed the powers granted in 1592, ordered the matriculation of
all arms in Scotland , and expressly authorized Lyon to grant armorial bearings "to
virtuous and well-deserving persons", and his authority in these matters was
reserved entire in the nineteenth article of the Treaty of Union.
In 1867 there was a further Act of Parliament which put the Lyon Court on a new
footing. All fees were thenceforth paid to the Treasury, and the Lord Lyon King of
Arms , Lyon Clerk, and the Heralds and Pursuivants were paid salaries and
received no fees.
The penal jurisdiction of the Lyon Court is concerned with protecting the rights
of private individuals and the Crown in heraldic matters. The Lyon Court has a
Procurator-Fiscal, or public presecutor, like any other Scottish Court, and he can
bring proceedings against those who improperly usurp armorial bearings. Such
a presecution is analogous to an Inland Revenue case, the armorial offender having
cheated the Exchequer out of fees payable on the matriculation or grant of arms.
> More seriously, the fact that the Granting of arms is accompanied by the
> charging of a fee raises a prima facie assumption that a grant is NOT a
> patent of nobility.
The logic of this does not follow as without doubt in Scotland the grant of arms
makes the recipient a "noble in the noblesse of Scotland". There is an excellent
article on this some time ago by Agnew in "The Coat of Arms"...if necessary I will
get my copy of this out of storage and let you have the details. The article is
mentioned in passing by Dr Andrew Lyall in his series on "Irish Heraldic Jurisdiction"
which has appeared recently in "The Coat of Arms".
> I would like to see the wording of the patent. I would also recommend
> that people read the very informative "Scots Heraldry" by Innes. It
> tries to explain the unusual state of heraldic theory in Scotland.
> Because it is complicated by the clan system, Scottish heraldic theory is
> somewhat contradicitory. It claims that a grant indicates nobility, but
> that all clansmen, as being thoeretically related to the armigerous head
> of the clan, have the right to a grant. So really what they are saying
> is that ALL Scotsmen are "noble". (or does it just apply to the
> highlanders? :-) ) Either way, this is hardly an exclusionary heraldic
> theory.
I think you have missed the point that Innes of Learney was making. He
confirms that a grant of arms indicates nobility. If you can prove a male
line descent from the original grantee then you are entitled to have a
differenced version of those arms matriculated in your name. This essentially
is a confirmation of nobility and as outward show of this you are entitled to
wear your own crest-badge with one eagle feather. This crest-badge is your
own crest within a plain circlet NOT your chief's crest within the belt and buckle.
The general clansman who cannot prove a male descent is not entitled to arms,
is not noble and can ONLY wear his chief's crest within the belt and buckle.
[This is a very brief summary of a very complex topic!!!]
> : The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a grant
> : of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility.
>
> When a judge is wrong, you appeal. It happens all the time.
Who is saying that Lord Lyon is wrong?
>
> If an American were to go round saying
> : that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would be a clear case of
> : passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a coat of
> : arms is in my book exactly the same.
>
> Not at ALL!! Even if a grant of arms in Scotland is a patent of
> nobility, it is very much the exceptional practise, NOT the rule. Having
> arms does NOT, in most countries, give rise to a presumption of noble status, and so
> therefore the assumption of arms in NO WAY can be characterized as an
> attempt to pass oneself off as noble. I simply cannot disagree more
> strongly with this line of argument. It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!
With all due respect, I totally disagree with you. In fact heraldic tradition in most
European countries accepts that the possession of a coat-of-arms is proof
of nobility. In most of the German states, for exanple, the first grant of a title
was almost invariably accompanied by the granting of a coat-of-arms.....in the
ancien regime of France, only nobles could bear arms (in France the term 'noble'
had a very wide meaning: eg. commissioned officers were deemed to have become
noble by virtue of their commission from the Crown - they were referred to as the
'noblesse d'epee').
The SMOM, as a further example, has always said that in the approving of "noble
proofs", the possession of a correctly registered or confirmed coat of arms is ipso
facto proof of nobility. (I accept that some writers, such as Gayre, claim that for there
to be true nobility you need to be the grandson of the original grantee but I think this
is taking matters a little too far!).
The English College of Arms, whilst not accepting that the grant of a coat of arms is in
any way the grant of nobility, does say that the grant of arms is the recoginiton of one's
status in life. The Kings of Arms have the special function of granting arms by Letters
Patent. Any subject of the Crown desirous of bearing arms can apply for a Grant of
Arms. The Kings of Arms are authorized by the Sovereign in their Patents of
Appointment to grant arms to "eminent men, subject to the consent in writing of the
Earl Marhal first given". If an applicant is considered "eminent" an Earl Marshal's
Warrant is issued and eventually the Patent is issued and signed by the Kings of Arms.
The rule of thumb applied to eligibility to bear arms has latterly been at least the
possession of a civil or military commission, or a university degree, professional
qualification and/or evidence of public service. The definition of "eminence", however,
is essentially a matter of common sense; there are no hard and fast rules.
> : > A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
> : > certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
> : > properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
>
> : If he is not of sufficient rank to be granted arms then it is wrong for him
> : to assume them....he should apply to a competant authority for a grant.
>
> What are you saying here? That he can assume arms if his is of
> sufficient rank, but if not he has to apply for a grant ?
No, i am not saying that (or, at least, I did not mean to!). If someone thinks
that he is of sufficient rank to be armigerous, ie that he has reached what
is often referred to as "the port of gentility", then he should have the courage
of his convictions and apply for a grant of arms.
> The only case form the Court of Chivalry (on heraldic matters) reported
> in the British Legal digests makes it quite clear that persons can
> enforce rights to arms that they have assumed themselves.
Which case is this, please?
> : Anyway, when's the last time you tried to send a sealed letter through
> : the post? The wax gets all ruined and look really messy when it gets
> : there.........
>
> But a "wafer seal" with the arms of a corporation (or person)
> will have the effect of binding that corporation to the legal effects of the
> document to which it is affixed. Heraldic arms are for identification, first and
> foremost. This was made clear in the earliest of heraldic writings,
> where arms were compared to a persons name. This is a very old theory,
> and nothing has been produced to show why it should be changed, or that
> it has been changed.
Sorry, Lorne...I don't see the point you're trying to make here. I was being
jocular with Simon!!!!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
> is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
> The American can ask a US court to change his name to Duke of Sussex if he
> wants; and if the judge refuses, it'll be only because it might seem to
> violate the ban on granting titles in the US. But the judge doesn't
> care whether there is a man who is called Duke of Sussex somewhere in
> England, or in Nepal for that matter. It's outside of his jurisdiction.
> (In fact, he won't even care if there is already someone by that name
> in the US! I have no legal standing to prevent someone from legally
> changing his name to Francois Velde.)
I hear what you're saying here. I know nothing of US law but isn't there
some protection against someone "passing themselves off" as someone
else. If, for example, a US citizen claimed to be the Duke of Sussex and
thereby, say, gained credit at a department store on the strength of this
bogus title, wouldn't that be deemed to be fraud? I'm almost certain
that it would be so deemd by a UK court.
>
> This question of multiple jurisdictions came up when we discussed
> renunciations of peerages, and several said: "you can't renounce a
> peerage." Maybe not under British law, but that doesn't mean you can't
> renounce it under American law. Likewise, the fact that bearing arms
> might be construed as a sign of nobility in Scotland doesn't mean that
> an individual in Portugal, Hungary or the US can't bear arms if he isn't
> noble. Scottish laws don't apply worldwide.
As I have said in a reply to an earlier thread, the attitude on the
Continent is that the bearing of arms IS a prerogative of the nobility.
The adoption of a coat of arms to which one is not entitled may not
be unlawful in,say, the US, but it is clearly in bad taste. It is akin
to adding honours and qualifications to one's name without
entitlement.
> But there is no competent authority in the US! There is no rank requirement
> here, nor was there in most of Europe during most of history. Nobles,
> commoners, tradesmen, peasants, physical persons, moral persons, lay,
> cleric, powerful men, men who had renounced everything, women, non-Christians,
> everybody who wanted arms had arms.
Firstly, I do not agree that there qwas not a rank requirement in most of
Europe. My research has shown that in fact the opposite was true [apart from
so-called "burger" arms].
Secondly, it is always open to a US citizen to obtain an honorary grant of
arms on the basis of British descent if he registers his pedigree establishing
the descent with the College. Furthermore, it is open to US towns and corporate
bodies to obtain a devisal of arms from the College.
Perhaps it is time for the US to recognize the need for at least properly regulated
municipal or corporate heraldry and establish its own heraldic authority.
> : I can only speak for the College. The fee has to be split many ways
> : to pay for the College and its staff (this is, after all, the College's sole
> : source of income) and in this day and age the fees are not
> : excessive.
>
> The college receives no subsidies from government?
Good heavens no!!!! The College of Arms is almost entirely
self-financing, and in not the recipient of any regular public funding, though its
officers do have official salaries which were last raised in the reign of James I,
but reduced again under William IV. At present these amount to 49.07 per
annum, for Garter King of Arms, 20.25 for Clarenceux and Norroy and Ulster,
17.80 for Heralds, and 13.95 for Pursuivants. Nor, unlike many ancient
institutions, does the College of Arms have any endowments of its own.
George IV, with grandiose generosity, provided a regular income for the
maintenance of the buildings and records based on a grant of augmented
fees of Honour, but these, unfortunately, were abolished by the Liberal
Governemnt of 1905, as part of its unsuccessful attack on the House of Lords
and the hereditary principle. By a mixture of frugality and luck, however, the
College has so far managed to keep its head above water.
Lorne Gray
: In <3q5vrf$b...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca
: (Lorne Gray) writes:
: >The only case from the Court of Chivalry (on heraldic matters)
: reported
: >in the British Legal digests makes it quite clear that persons can
: >enforce rights to arms that they have assumed themselves.
: >
: Which case was this?
Whoops, forgot the cite. Scrope vs Grosvenor. Both parties had assumed
arms. It came down to who showed the longest usage.
--
Lorne Gray
Vancouver, Canada
Freenet Office Volunteer
"For the Snark WAS a boojum, you see." - Lewis Carol
Louis Epstein
: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) writes:
: : simon....@smallworld.co.uk (Simon Kershaw) writes:
: : > >[Patrick write:]
: : > >the possession of a coat-of-arms is, depending on your view
: : > >point, either open proof of one's nobility or at the very least an
: : > >hereditable honour granted by the Crown (I use the word 'honour'
: : > >very loosely!). Whatever one's viewpoint it confers a certain
: : > >status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
: : >
: : > Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
: : > nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
: : > granted by the British Crown?
: [snip, snip]
: : If an American were to go round saying that he was the Duke of Sussex or
: : suchlike, then that would be a clear case of
: : passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a
: : coat of arms is in my book exactly the same.
: The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
: is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
However,we would be better off if there was one....and should try to behave
as if there were.
: This question of multiple jurisdictions came up when we discussed
: renunciations of peerages, and several said: "you can't renounce a
: peerage." Maybe not under British law, but that doesn't mean you can't
: renounce it under American law.
Since the peerage only has meaning in the context of British law,others are
irrelevant.
: By the same logic, the rules about mandatory differencing and uniqueness
: of the claimant to a coat have no reason to apply in countries where
: they don't apply, even if the ancestry of the coat is British.
Yes they do...however few countries HAVE such rules,all OUGHT to.
: The college receives no subsidies from government?
The heralds have token salaries that have not budged in centuries.I
have a hunch the fees they now charge originated as bribes,but there
is little chance Parliament would pay them a "living wage" to stop
charging,or that the Queen could afford to out of her own money.
Lorne Gray
: I'm quite shocked, Simon...we seem to be disagreeing with each other!!!
<Grin>
: OK...as an example, in Scotland the grant of a coat of arms says quite plainly
: that the grantee is then to be regarded as a member of the noblesse of Scotland.
Now this is very interesting. If I am not mistaken, there is legislation
governing the Lord Lyon. It gives him the powers to grant arms. I am
not aware that it gives him the power (delegated or otherwise) to create
new members of the nobility. If he really IS selling patents of
nobility, then I say we have him charged under the Sale of Honours Act. :-)
More seriously, the fact that the Granting of arms is accompanied by the
charging of a fee raises a prima facie assumption that a grant is NOT a
patent of nobility.
I would like to see the wording of the patent. I would also recommend
that people read the very informative "Scots Heraldry" by Innes. It
tries to explain the unusual state of heraldic theory in Scotland.
Because it is complicated by the clan system, Scottish heraldic theory is
somewhat contradicitory. It claims that a grant indicates nobility, but
that all clansmen, as being thoeretically related to the armigerous head
of the clan, have the right to a grant. So really what they are saying
is that ALL Scotsmen are "noble". (or does it just apply to the
highlanders? :-) ) Either way, this is hardly an exclusionary heraldic
theory.
: The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a grant
: of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility.
When a judge is wrong, you appeal. It happens all the time.
If an American were to go round saying
: that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would be a clear case of
: passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a coat of
: arms is in my book exactly the same.
Not at ALL!! Even if a grant of arms in Scotland is a patent of
nobility, it is very much the exceptional practise, NOT the rule. Having
arms does
NOT, in most countries, give rise to a presumption of noble status, and so
therefore the assumption of arms in NO WAY can be characterized as an
attempt to pass oneself off as noble. I simply cannot disagree more
strongly with this line of argument. It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!
: > A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
: > certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
: > properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
: If he is not of sufficient rank to be granted arms then it is wrong for him
: to assume them....he should apply to a competant authority for a grant.
What are you saying here? That he can assume arms if his is of
sufficient rank, but if not he has to apply for a grant ?
The only case form the Court of Chivalry (on heraldic matters) reported
in the British Legal digests makes it quite clear that persons can
enforce rights to arms that they have assumed themselves.
: Anyway, when's the last time you tried to send a sealed letter through
: the post? The wax gets all ruined and look really messy when it gets
: there.........
But a "wafer seal" with the arms of a corporation (or person)
will have the effect of
binding that corporation to the legal effects of the document to which
it is affixed. Heraldic arms are for identification, first and
foremost. This was made clear in the earliest of heraldic writings,
where arms were compared to a persons name. This is a very old theory,
and nothing has been produced to show why it should be changed, or that
it has been changed.
--
Joshua Brandon Holden
> The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a
> grant of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility. If an American were to
> go round saying that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would
> be a clear case of passing himself off to be something that he plainly
> wasn't.....to assume a coat of arms is in my book exactly the same.
It seems to me more like saying one was Duke of Rhode Island, or Baron of
Unicorn Park --- rather silly, perhaps, but (speaking as an American) I
wouldn't call it offensive! (Actually, us SCA types use the latter sort of
title rather a lot....)
---josh
--
Joshua Brandon Holden Brown Math Department hol...@math.brown.edu
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!" ---Cutter John
YAZ/socrates
Francois Velde
: simon....@smallworld.co.uk (Simon Kershaw) writes:
: > >[Patrick write:]
: > >the possession of a coat-of-arms is, depending on your view
: > >point, either open proof of one's nobility or at the very least an
: > >hereditable honour granted by the Crown (I use the word 'honour'
: > >very loosely!). Whatever one's viewpoint it confers a certain
: > >status on the owner which is recognisable in internationaly.
: >
: > Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
: > nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
: > granted by the British Crown?
[snip, snip]
: If an American were to go round saying
: that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would be a clear case
: of
: passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a
: coat of
: arms is in my book exactly the same.
The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
The American can ask a US court to change his name to Duke of Sussex if he
wants; and if the judge refuses, it'll be only because it might seem to
violate the ban on granting titles in the US. But the judge doesn't
care whether there is a man who is called Duke of Sussex somewhere in
England, or in Nepal for that matter. It's outside of his jurisdiction.
(In fact, he won't even care if there is already someone by that name
in the US! I have no legal standing to prevent someone from legally
changing his name to Francois Velde.)
Of course, upon arriving at Heathrow, our American might run into
trouble...
This question of multiple jurisdictions came up when we discussed
renunciations of peerages, and several said: "you can't renounce a
peerage." Maybe not under British law, but that doesn't mean you can't
renounce it under American law. Likewise, the fact that bearing arms
might be construed as a sign of nobility in Scotland doesn't mean that
an individual in Portugal, Hungary or the US can't bear arms if he isn't
noble. Scottish laws don't apply worldwide.
By the same logic, the rules about mandatory differencing and uniqueness
of the claimant to a coat have no reason to apply in countries where
they don't apply, even if the ancestry of the coat is British.
: > A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
: > certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
: > properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
:
: If he is not of sufficient rank to be granted arms then it is wrong for him
: to assume them....he should apply to a competant authority for a grant.
But there is no competent authority in the US! There is no rank requirement
here, nor was there in most of Europe during most of history. Nobles,
commoners, tradesmen, peasants, physical persons, moral persons, lay,
cleric, powerful men, men who had renounced everything, women, non-Christians,
everybody who wanted arms had arms.
: Anyway, when's the last time you tried to send a sealed letter through
: the post? The wax gets all ruined and look really messy when it gets
: there.........
Have it hand-delivered (that'll make an impression, so to speak :-)
: I can only speak for the College. The fee has to be split many ways
: to pay for the College and its staff (this is, after all, the College's sole
: source of income) and in this day and age the fees are not
: excessive.
The college receives no subsidies from government?
--
Jim Terzian
>The only case form the Court of Chivalry (on heraldic matters)
reported
>in the British Legal digests makes it quite clear that persons can
>enforce rights to arms that they have assumed themselves.
>
Which case was this?
- Jim Terzian
J...@ix.netcom.com
Francois Velde
: I hear what you're saying here. I know nothing of US law but isn't there
: some protection against someone "passing themselves off" as someone
: else. If, for example, a US citizen claimed to be the Duke of Sussex and
: thereby, say, gained credit at a department store on the strength of this
: bogus title, wouldn't that be deemed to be fraud? I'm almost certain
: that it would be so deemd by a UK court.
It is illegal to pass yourself off for what you are not with the intent
to defraud. But assuming the same name as someone else is not necessarily
indication of such intention. I can change my name to George Washington,
or Jesus Christ (real-life examples). I can change my name to Joe Smith,
even though there are many Joe Smiths around. And recently, a doubtful
character changed his name to X (I forget what X was); other people
bearing the same name protested, to no avail.
: As I have said in a reply to an earlier thread, the attitude on the
: Continent is that the bearing of arms IS a prerogative of the nobility.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The modern prejudice in some countries
may run that way, many confusing heraldry with nobility, but, at least
for France, that is not true. See infra.
: The adoption of a coat of arms to which one is not entitled may not
: be unlawful in,say, the US, but it is clearly in bad taste. It is akin
: to adding honours and qualifications to one's name without
: entitlement.
No. Good grief, there has never been any nobility in the US. How can one
construe assumption of arms to be an usurpation of honors which have never
existed in the US? In France, in Germany, in Austria, where nobility has
been inexistent for almost all of this century, how could the assumption
of arms be so construed? I think your insular perspective is warping
your judgment here.
: > But there is no competent authority in the US! There is no rank requirement
: > here, nor was there in most of Europe during most of history. Nobles,
: > commoners, tradesmen, peasants, physical persons, moral persons, lay,
: > cleric, powerful men, men who had renounced everything, women,
: > non-Christians,
: > everybody who wanted arms had arms.
:
: Firstly, I do not agree that there qwas not a rank requirement in most of
: Europe. My research has shown that in fact the opposite was true [apart from
: so-called "burger" arms].
You are wrong for France, that is easy to prove. The only two attempts
at regulation of heraldry in France were in 1696 and 1808. As for the
former case, it is quite obvious that coats of arms were not restricted
to nobility (and, given that the aim of the regulation was to enhance
government revenues by charging a fee, it would have been self-defeating
to add such a restriction). Many commoners were told to register their
arms, and assigned arms if they didn't do so voluntarily.
Not that Louis XIV was thereby debasing an honor reserved to nobles.
Take a look at the armory of the City of Paris, and you will see that
prominent citizens of Paris had been using arms since the 14th century.
In fact, 17th c. theoreticians invented the notion that non-nobles could
not use helms on their achievements, which plainly indicates that
non-nobles *had* achievements.
The case of peasants I cited is not made up: there exists a collection of
seals used by Normandy peasants in the 13th c., with thousands of armorial
bearings. That Jews had and used coat of arms in official documents and
contracts is well-attested for the 14th and 15th centuries (there's a whole
book which inventories them): and no Jew in the Middle Ages was ever a noble.
Heraldry originated with the warring nobility, there is no doubt of that;
but the 14th century, it had extended to all segments of society. And it
was never regulated in the sense that a single authority had a monopoly
on granting arms. That was never the job of heralds, not until the 16th
c. in England. By which time the general use of armory in society was
a fact.
Of course, in the 17th c., feudal society was a distant memory, the
nobility in many countries was loosing ground to the rising bourgeoisie,
and many complacent theoreticians of heraldry started railing against
"usurpations" of heraldry by commoners. And, in Britain, the College
of Arms somehow asserted a monopoly which it did not have. That is fine.
But the situation in England must not color your vision of past and
present times on the Continent.
: > The college receives no subsidies from government?
:
: Good heavens no!!!! The College of Arms is almost entirely
: self-financing, and in not the recipient of any regular public funding,
: [trifling salaries omitted]
Do they charge the Queen's Household for their services at public ceremonies?
They ought to.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
writes:
> : >The only case from the Court of Chivalry (on heraldic matters)
> : reported
> : >in the British Legal digests makes it quite clear that persons can
> : >enforce rights to arms that they have assumed themselves.
> : >
>
> : Which case was this?
>
>
> arms. It came down to who showed the longest usage.
>
noted cases are Carminow v Scrope, Scrope v Grosvenor, Lovell v Morley, and
Grey v Hastings. These cases make it abundantly clear that a right to arms is
only established by descent from one who has borne arms from time immemorial
(this is a legal phrase which in the Common Law is taken to be the year 1189, but
in the Court of Chivalry it means 1066) or by grant from a lawful authority, such
as a sovereign, or a king of arms acting with the authority of the sovereign.
The last time the Court of Chivalry sat was in 1954 in the case of The Lord Mayor,
Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester v Manchester Palaces of Varieties Ltd.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> It is illegal to pass yourself off for what you are not with the intent
> to defraud. But assuming the same name as someone else is not necessarily
> indication of such intention. I can change my name to George Washington,
> or Jesus Christ (real-life examples). I can change my name to Joe Smith,
> even though there are many Joe Smiths around. And recently, a doubtful
> character changed his name to X (I forget what X was); other people
> bearing the same name protested, to no avail.
Assuming someone else's name is not quite the same as assuming someone
else's title.....and why else would someone assume a title if not with the intent
to pass themselves off as the holder of the title?
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The modern prejudice in some countries
> may run that way, many confusing heraldry with nobility, but, at least
> for France, that is not true. See infra.
Then we must agree to disagree on this point (see my comments below).
> No. Good grief, there has never been any nobility in the US. How can one
> construe assumption of arms to be an usurpation of honors which have never
> existed in the US? In France, in Germany, in Austria, where nobility has
> been inexistent for almost all of this century, how could the assumption
> of arms be so construed? I think your insular perspective is warping
> your judgment here.
I am, of course, aware that there has never been any nobility in the US (in
colonial days matters were slightly different).....but I do not see how this
could be justification of usurping the honours granted in another country. This
is simply bad taste and tacky....but, after all, that is typical of Americans so
I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised.
Of course I'm speaking from an insular perspective.....right at the beginning of
this thread I warned that I could only speak from the point of view of a British
armiger.
To give you a parallel example.....in the US you treat your national flag the Star
and Stripes in a very reverant fashion. If I was to burn the US flag...or turn it into
a pair of boxer shorts....or use it as a duster or a dishcloth then you would be most
upset.....and from an American perspective this would be very justifiable yet
from my point of view I wouldn't understand or appreciate what was upsetting you.
So the similar case of a coat-of-arms. In my country a coat of arms is something
granted to myself or my ancestors by my Sovereign and is a mark of honour and is
greatly prized and respected....but in your country the same does not appertain
and so you cannot see what all the fuss is about.
Sure, let Americans adopt coats of arms if they want to...but don't expect me to
accept them as being "genuine" nor for me not to laugh behind their backs at them
for such "nouveau riche" pretentiousness
> You are wrong for France, that is easy to prove. The only two attempts
> at regulation of heraldry in France were in 1696 and 1808. As for the
> former case, it is quite obvious that coats of arms were not restricted
> to nobility (and, given that the aim of the regulation was to enhance
> government revenues by charging a fee, it would have been self-defeating
> to add such a restriction). Many commoners were told to register their
> arms, and assigned arms if they didn't do so voluntarily.
>
> Not that Louis XIV was thereby debasing an honor reserved to nobles.
> Take a look at the armory of the City of Paris, and you will see that
> prominent citizens of Paris had been using arms since the 14th century.
> In fact, 17th c. theoreticians invented the notion that non-nobles could
> not use helms on their achievements, which plainly indicates that
> non-nobles *had* achievements.
>
> The case of peasants I cited is not made up: there exists a collection of
> seals used by Normandy peasants in the 13th c., with thousands of armorial
> bearings. That Jews had and used coat of arms in official documents and
> contracts is well-attested for the 14th and 15th centuries (there's a whole
> book which inventories them): and no Jew in the Middle Ages was ever a noble.
This is very interesting.....I would need to look at my reference books to see what
they had to say about the subject. In England the great merchant princes of the
City of London have always been to a law to themselves and from the very dawn
of heraldry it was accepted that they were entitled to coat armout.
Even today in England the College of Arms accepts a person who is a member
of a City Livery Company as being eligible to apply for a grant of arms.
I beleive that Gayre in his book "The Nature of Arms" (which I have leant to someone
and so cannot immediately refer to it) talks about this situation in France. Are we not
here talking about "burger" or "burgher" arms?
> Heraldry originated with the warring nobility, there is no doubt of that;
> but the 14th century, it had extended to all segments of society. And it
> was never regulated in the sense that a single authority had a monopoly
> on granting arms. That was never the job of heralds, not until the 16th
> c. in England. By which time the general use of armory in society was
> a fact.
As far as England is concerned, this is a somewhat simplistic view. For example,
in the early fifteenth century the Crown moved against self-assumed arms that did
not date from time immemorial, and in writs of 1417 to the Sheriffs of Hampshire,
Wiltshire, Sussex, and Dorset, Henry V ordered them to proclaim that bo one should
use arms on the forthcoming expedition to France unless entitled to them in right of
his ancestors or by a grant from a competent authority. The writ commences by
admitting that divers men had assumed unto themselves arms on previous
expeditions, and forbade the use of arms except by right of ancestors or valid
grant, and also "exceptis illis qui nobiscum apud bellum de Agincourt arma
portabant" a clause that has been variously interpreted, but which might perhaps be
most reasonably considered to mean that those who self-assumed arms at Agincourt
might keep them.
> But the situation in England must not color your vision of past and
> present times on the Continent.
Why not? Just because over countries have become lax in their control
of heraldic matters should I just accept what "is" as opposed to what
"should be"?
> Do they charge the Queen's Household for their services at public ceremonies?
> They ought to.
As I explained, the Officers of Arms are part of the Royal Household and by
attending at public ceremonies are merely carrying out their duties.
pos...@imap2.asu.edu
: As I have said in a reply to an earlier thread, the attitude on the
: Continent is that the bearing of arms IS a prerogative of the nobility.
: The adoption of a coat of arms to which one is not entitled may not
: be unlawful in,say, the US, but it is clearly in bad taste. It is akin
: to adding honours and qualifications to one's name without
: entitlement.
By saying this, do you mean that a person may not assume a new, unique
coat of arms? I certainly understand why one cannot simply bear the arms
of another without the proper proof of descent. Especially in the USA,
where there is no "nobility" as such, should people be discouraged from
introducing a new heraldic tradition to their family, so long as proper
heraldic practice is maintained?
: Firstly, I do not agree that there qwas not a rank requirement in most of
: Europe. My research has shown that in fact the opposite was true [apart from
: so-called "burger" arms].
But what of the many heralds visitations? These excursions were
specifically for the purpose of recording and confirming the arms which
had already been assume and were already in use throughout the realm.
: Secondly, it is always open to a US citizen to obtain an honorary grant of
: arms on the basis of British descent if he registers his pedigree establishing
: the descent with the College. Furthermore, it is open to US towns and corporate
: bodies to obtain a devisal of arms from the College.
And for those with no traceable English pedigree. . .?
: Perhaps it is time for the US to recognize the need for at least properly regulated
: municipal or corporate heraldry and establish its own heraldic authority.
Agreed, but it will not. On the other hand, the American College of
Heraldry, a non-profit organization, has done a great deal to try to
educate Americans about correct heraldic practice, and has maintained a
registry of foreign arms borne in the US, and arms assumed in the US,
which are often designed with the College's assistance. There is no
absolute heraldic authority in the US, but the establishment of one is
about as likely as our joining the British Commonwealth (and these are
the two most likely ways of our obtaining government-regulated heraldry).
------------------------
Patrick O'Shea, DMA
P.O...@asu.edu
(602) 730-5889
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> : The adoption of a coat of arms to which one is not entitled may not
> : be unlawful in,say, the US, but it is clearly in bad taste. It is akin
> : to adding honours and qualifications to one's name without
> : entitlement.
>
> coat of arms? I certainly understand why one cannot simply bear the arms
> of another without the proper proof of descent. Especially in the USA,
> where there is no "nobility" as such, should people be discouraged from
> introducing a new heraldic tradition to their family, so long as proper
> heraldic practice is maintained?
If I were to take a strict UK legal viewpoint, then I would have to say that it
is wrong for anyone to assume arms BUT if a US citizen were to design
arms for himself or herself (and ensure that these did not copy any other
existing arms) AND made it quite plain to all and sundry that these were
assumed arms AND that they were of a "burgher" type and no pretension
to nobility was being made......then I could not seem that there would be
any great harm in it. For their part the adoptee, if I can use that word, would
have to accept that their arms would in some way be "second class" and
could in no way be equated to properly granted or inherited arms.
It might be an idea if such arms were to bear a distinguishing mark (I am
hesitating to say a brisure) to denote that they were assumed.....and
obviously it would be wrong to use supporters, coronets of rank or
suchlike accoutrements.
> But what of the many heralds visitations? These excursions were
> specifically for the purpose of recording and confirming the arms which
> had already been assume and were already in use throughout the realm.
See the comment I have made in another thread on the writs issued by Henry V
in 1417 when the Crown moved against self-assumed arms that did not date
from time immemorail. The writs were to prevent anyone bearing arms in
the forthcoming expedition to France unless entitled to them in right of his
ancestors or by a grant from a competent authority.
The Heralds' Visitations to particular counties were to "remove all false arms
and arms devised without authority". This is rather different from the gloss
you have put on them!!!
> : Secondly, it is always open to a US citizen to obtain an honorary grant of
> : arms on the basis of British descent if he registers his pedigree establishing
> : the descent with the College. Furthermore, it is open to US towns and corporate
> : bodies to obtain a devisal of arms from the College.
>
> And for those with no traceable English pedigree. . .?
Plain unfortunate, I'm afraid!!!
> : Perhaps it is time for the US to recognize the need for at least properly regulated
> : municipal or corporate heraldry and establish its own heraldic authority.
>
> Agreed, but it will not. On the other hand, the American College of
> Heraldry, a non-profit organization, has done a great deal to try to
> educate Americans about correct heraldic practice, and has maintained a
> registry of foreign arms borne in the US, and arms assumed in the US,
> which are often designed with the College's assistance. There is no
> absolute heraldic authority in the US, but the establishment of one is
> about as likely as our joining the British Commonwealth (and these are
> the two most likely ways of our obtaining government-regulated heraldry).
I have heard of the American College of Heraldry from time to time and it does
seem to be doing an excellent job.
However, I do not see why your government should not establish a "Federal Bureau
for Heraldic Affairs" or some such like body. Republics like Ireland have heraldic
bodies...why not the US of A????
Zach Kessin
>I have heard of the American College of Heraldry from time to time and it does
>seem to be doing an excellent job.
>However, I do not see why your government should not establish a "Federal Bureau
>for Heraldic Affairs" or some such like body. Republics like Ireland have heraldic
>bodies...why not the US of A????
Well the current congress seems to be more in the mood to kill agencies and not create
new ones they are trying to kill the department of Education for hevens sake. Now I will
admit some good heraldic education would be nice. When my 5th grade class tried to
teach "heraldry" it was a disaster (well they got the shape of the shild about right)
I didn't know any better till I found the SCA and someone handed me some good books
on the Subject.
Also the idea of trying to change to constitution on this issue would be pointless.
--Zach
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> >However, I do not see why your government should not establish a "Federal Bureau
> >for Heraldic Affairs" or some such like body. Republics like Ireland have heraldic
> >bodies...why not the US of A????
>
> new ones they are trying to kill the department of Education for hevens sake. Now I will
> admit some good heraldic education would be nice. When my 5th grade class tried to
> teach "heraldry" it was a disaster (well they got the shape of the shild about right)
> I didn't know any better till I found the SCA and someone handed me some good books
> on the Subject.
>
> Also the idea of trying to change to constitution on this issue would be pointless.
I don't think anyone is suggesting you should change your Constitution...just that the
government establishes a regulatory authority for heraldic matters. Presumbaly it would
be self-financing from fees charges for either granting new arms or registering
existing ones.
pos...@imap2.asu.edu
: If I were to take a strict UK legal viewpoint, then I would have to say that it
: is wrong for anyone to assume arms BUT if a US citizen were to design
: arms for himself or herself (and ensure that these did not copy any other
: existing arms) AND made it quite plain to all and sundry that these were
: assumed arms AND that they were of a "burgher" type and no pretension
: to nobility was being made......then I could not seem that there would be
: any great harm in it. For their part the adoptee, if I can use that word, would
: have to accept that their arms would in some way be "second class" and
: could in no way be equated to properly granted or inherited arms.
I might point out that such assumed arms might well serve as a first step
in obtaining a grant from a recognized heraldic authority outside the
USA. In any case, matters in the US can't be regarded in a "strict UK
point of view." =-)
: It might be an idea if such arms were to bear a distinguishing mark (I am
: hesitating to say a brisure) to denote that they were assumed.....and
: obviously it would be wrong to use supporters, coronets of rank or
: suchlike accoutrements.
Perhaps, but it is difficult enough to educate Americans about proper
heraldic traditions without introducing a further distinguishing mark.
On the other hand, I certain agree that coronets of rank, supporters, and
other augmentation which relate directly to one's rank or noble status
should only be borne by those who are entitled to them.
: See the comment I have made in another thread on the writs issued by Henry V
: in 1417 when the Crown moved against self-assumed arms that did not date
: from time immemorail. The writs were to prevent anyone bearing arms in
: the forthcoming expedition to France unless entitled to them in right of his
: ancestors or by a grant from a competent authority.
It is difficult to find anything in this country that dates from "time
immemorial," except of course for certain Native American traditions.
Out of curiosity (and ignoring for the moment that the English College of
Arms recognizes only its own grants), what extant heraldic authorities
would you consider to be "competent" in the context suggested above? I'm
just curious to get your opinion.
: The Heralds' Visitations to particular counties were to "remove all false arms
: and arms devised without authority". This is rather different from the gloss
: you have put on them!!!
Again, we have the problematic issue of determining the meaning of
"authority." In the context of the UK, this would be limited to the
College of Arms and Lord Lyon, but what about the determining the meaning
of "authority" in a global context? It's not a simple question, but
certainly one which needs asking. On the other hand, I readily admit my
oversimplification of English heraldic visitations. Unfortuately, there
is no satisfactory parallel to make my point vis a vis the USA.
: I have heard of the American College of Heraldry from time to time and it does
: seem to be doing an excellent job.
It is the best source for heraldic information and guidance in this
country, and has assisted many armigers in obtaining grants from
recognized offices of arms abroad.
: However, I do not see why your government should not establish a "Federal Bureau
: for Heraldic Affairs" or some such like body. Republics like Ireland have heraldic
: bodies...why not the US of A????
Without getting into the whole debate again (it was a topic of
considerable interest on this newsgroup some time ago), people in the USA
are very paranoid when it comes to official government bodies which
impart an honor or status that might be considered "noble." Also, in the
current political climate, it would be impossible to establish another
government agency. The congress is looking at ways to reduce medical
benefits for the poor and elderly, and is considering reducing many
educational and social programs. Somehow, an office of arms, no matter
how small or inexpensive, doesn't seem likely. It would be the greatest
example of the "political lightning rod" yet invented. =-)
Regards,
Patrick
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>: The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
>: is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
>However,we would be better off if there was one....and should try to behave
>as if there were.
And just how are you poposing we go about that? How do you register your
arms with a nonexistant institution?
Klaus O K
Lorne Gray
: Francois Velde (ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : in...@londwill.demon.co.uk (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) writes:
: : : simon....@smallworld.co.uk (Simon Kershaw) writes:
[Francois]
: : The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
: : is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
[Louis]
: However,we would be better off if there was one....and should try to behave
: as if there were.
: : This question of multiple jurisdictions came up when we discussed
: : renunciations of peerages, and several said: "you can't renounce a
: : peerage." Maybe not under British law, but that doesn't mean you can't
: : renounce it under American law.
: Since the peerage only has meaning in the context of British law,others are
: irrelevant.
: : By the same logic, the rules about mandatory differencing and uniqueness
: : of the claimant to a coat have no reason to apply in countries where
: : they don't apply, even if the ancestry of the coat is British.
: Yes they do...however few countries HAVE such rules,all OUGHT to.
Here is the crux of the matter. Ought all coutries to have such rules.
I feel that they should not. Louis' position is based on his belief that a
hierarchy should be formally incorporated into the social structure. I
am an
egalitarian, and so am dead set against this. Both of our positions have
old traditions within heraldry. What I disagree with is that Louis
simply equates heraldry with hiearchy, and denies the other heraldic
traditions. It simply is not accurate.
Francois Velde
: ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU (Francois Velde) writes:
: > It is illegal to pass yourself off for what you are not with the intent
: > to defraud. But assuming the same name as someone else is not necessarily
: > indication of such intention. I can change my name to George Washington,
: > or Jesus Christ (real-life examples). I can change my name to Joe Smith,
: > even though there are many Joe Smiths around. And recently, a doubtful
: > character changed his name to X (I forget what X was); other people
: > bearing the same name protested, to no avail.
:
: Assuming someone else's name is not quite the same as assuming someone
: else's title.....and why else would someone assume a title if not with the
: intent
: to pass themselves off as the holder of the title?
Your question has no answer, since there are no titles in the US. Why
would someone assume the name of King of America if not with the intent
to pass themselves off as the king of America? But there is no king of
America.
You could say the same for assuming another person's name, yet in this
country that is not a problem. What can I tell you? US courts have a
different attitude toward such things. All this leads to is that
your analogy of assumption of arms with assumption of names gets you
nowhere in the US. One is legal, so the other as well could be.
: > No. Good grief, there has never been any nobility in the US. How can one
: > construe assumption of arms to be an usurpation of honors which have never
: > existed in the US? In France, in Germany, in Austria, where nobility has
: > been inexistent for almost all of this century, how could the assumption
: > of arms be so construed? I think your insular perspective is warping
: > your judgment here.
:
: I am, of course, aware that there has never been any nobility in the US (in
: colonial days matters were slightly different).....but I do not see how this
: could be justification of usurping the honours granted in another country.
This is strange reasoning. According to you, heraldry denotes nobility in
the UK, therefore no one in the rest of the world can use heraldry if they
are not noble, because that would be usurping nobility. It doesn't matter
whether there is any nobility in the other country. It doesn't matter whether
the other country cannot possibly see any usurpation of something that
doesn't exist in that country. The whole world should avoid offending
England?
: This is simply bad taste and tacky....but, after all, that is typical of
: Americans so
: I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised.
Same goes for the tasteless French, I suppose.
: Of course I'm speaking from an insular perspective.....right at the beginning of
: this thread I warned that I could only speak from the point of view of a British
: armiger.
And I started this whole thread with the assumption that the person inquiring
about arms was an American. I have no comments to make on what goes on in
Britain, where regulations exist. I am speaking from the perspective of
almost anywhere else, and more specifically, from the unregulated Continent
and the US. If someone in the US asks me whether he can use arms, I won't
answer: "unless you are descended from English gentry, forget it." If
there is to be any heraldry here, (or in France, or in Germany), it'll have
to be more than a hobby for Anglophiles and peer-watchers.
: To give you a parallel example.....in the US you treat your national flag
: [deleted]
The example is bad for several reasons:
* in the US the right to burn the flag is protected by the Constitution; some
people might be upset if you burn it, neither I nor the Supreme Court would
be.
* The US flag is, fundamentally, an American institution. I strongly reject
the notion that Britain has any kind of monopoly on heraldry. It did not
invent it, it even uses a foreign language to describe it. It may be the
country where it has remained the most vibrant, but that in no way confers
any privilege on Britons over the determination of what heraldry is.
Hence, equating assumption of arms by non-noble Americans to the burning
of the US flag by a UK citizen is just plain wrong. The US flag is a
US emblem, how you treat it I may read as an expression of what you
think of the US. Heraldry is *not* a British institution, and when
a German or an Italian or an American assume arms, he need not pay
much heed to what British armigers might think. It's not because
driving on the right of the road is illegal in the UK that I in the
US should drive my car on the left of the road.
Now, in 1696, when Louis XIV ordered registration of coats of arms, 115,000
arms were registered, of which 80,000 belonging to commoners. Does that
upset you greatly?
: Sure, let Americans adopt coats of arms if they want to...but don't expect me to
: accept them as being "genuine" nor for me not to laugh behind their backs at them
: for such "nouveau riche" pretentiousness
I find it ironic that assumption of arms would be interpreted as nouveau riche
behavior, when in Britain L2000 (and, I suppose, no criminal record) buys you
a coat of arms and the feeling of being special. I wonder what you think of
Elton John's behavior: ancien riche, perhaps?
Whether or not they are "genuine" is a difficult matter. Certainly, they
didn't cost L2000, but that's not a measure of genuineness. What that
measures is how much some people care about heraldry, and that's something
I fully respect. What a "genuine" coat of arms is in a country which has
no heraldic authority is perhaps impossible to define. But then again,
France (except for about a decade after 1696, and 1808-14) never had a
heraldic authority, and I don't think we'd want to toss out the whole
French armory as "not genuine".
: This is very interesting.....I would need to look at my reference books to
: see what
: they had to say about the subject.
I suggest you look at non-British reference books. Pastoureau's Traite
d'Heraldique contains most of the information I cited (and it is a fully
referenced book, unusual for French scholarship). And I was just
recently noticing an article in the Archives d'Heraldique Suisses on
"Peasant Heraldry in Switzerland", going back to the 14th c. I challenge
you to show me any piece of Old Regime legislation in France that bars
commoners from bearing arms.
: I beleive that Gayre in his book "The Nature of Arms" (which I have leant to someone
: and so cannot immediately refer to it) talks about this situation in France. Are we not
: here talking about "burger" or "burgher" arms?
I doubt that the 13th c. Normandy peasants or the 15th c. Narbonne Jews
were burghers in any sense of the word. And what if they were? What
kind of proposition will you put forth: "heraldry was reserved to
nobility, except when it wasn't"? Or will you count the 80,000 commoners
I cited as an "exception"?
Concerning Henry V's writ, I have seen the text, and it clearly only
deals with members of the armed expedition. I don't see how that
extrapolates to the rest of society. The visitations begin much later.
: > But the situation in England must not color your vision of past and
: > present times on the Continent.
:
: Why not? Just because over countries have become lax in their control
: of heraldic matters should I just accept what "is" as opposed to what
: "should be"?
And why would "what Britain does today" be "what should be"? The "lax
control" you speak of has been a reality on the continent for centuries.
Britain has been an anomaly for centuries. Now you may fix in your mind
the ideal state of heraldry to be somewhere in 1200, before differencing
disappeared, before Jews and peasants and other low-lifes usurped arms,
[***irony alert! Irony alert! Irony alert! ***]
but that would be perfectly arbitrary. (And would certainly preclude
a few modern practices, like the grant of arms for a fee).
: As I explained, the Officers of Arms are part of the Royal Household and by
: attending at public ceremonies are merely carrying out their duties.
Are they usually men of means, who can afford to devote their time to
this occupation? (I'm just being curious here.) Are all members
of the Royal Household paid similar wages?
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>> Not at ALL!! Even if a grant of arms in Scotland is a patent of
>> nobility, it is very much the exceptional practise, NOT the rule. Having
>> arms does NOT, in most countries, give rise to a presumption of noble status, and so
>> therefore the assumption of arms in NO WAY can be characterized as an
>> attempt to pass oneself off as noble. I simply cannot disagree more
>> strongly with this line of argument. It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!
>With all due respect, I totally disagree with you. In fact heraldic tradition in most
>European countries accepts that the possession of a coat-of-arms is proof
>of nobility. In most of the German states, for exanple, the first grant of a title
>was almost invariably accompanied by the granting of a coat-of-arms
This is a non sequitur. In Danmark, the granting of a knighthood is always
accompanied by an audience with the queen. Does that make anyone who's
had an audience a knight? Knights of the highest ranks (Knight of the
Elephant, Knight Great Cross of Dannebrog) get their arms displayed in
the curch of Frederiksborg Slot. This means that those who have no
arms assume them on getting this honor. Does that make every armigerous
Dane a knight great cross?
>No, i am not saying that (or, at least, I did not mean to!). If someone thinks
>that he is of sufficient rank to be armigerous, ie that he has reached what
>is often referred to as "the port of gentility", then he should have the courage
>of his convictions and apply for a grant of arms.
Apply to who? Are you saying that Americans (or Danes, for that matter)
should apply to some judge in Scotland?
The simple fact of the matter is that in much of Europe, assumed arms
have been the rule for centuries. If a craftsman needed a seal, he
would often put his "bom{rke" (whatever that is called in English)
inside a shield shape. This was as good an achievment as any.
I think it is wrong of you to try to restrict the use of heraldry
to the snob effect alone. It has many other possiblities.
Klaus O K
Matt Wilson
This is getting ridiculous. All the guy did was to profess an interest
in heraldry.
Concepts such as nobility are getting increasingly irrelavant nowadays.
If arms imply nobility (ie hereditary class of the highest status)
only, then maybe I should get another job and chuck all my books etc in
the bin. It amazes me that with our UK monarchy falling apart people
should be arguing about proof of nobility. I suggest proof of nobility
should only be awarded to those with big ears who talk to their plants,
as Prince Charles has more arms that you could shake a millrind at.
The Royal College of Arms charges more money than I can afford to grant
a coat of arms. What am I supposed to do, forget about it? I can't
believe that it really costs $3000 to cover administration and the
(admittedly superb) certicifate. In 200 years, the College may have
changed beyond recognition, but history will not have done - and
heraldry is more about history than anything else in my opinion. Why
should someone who happens to have money be more entitled to arms than
some of the people on this list who enjoy and know a lot about heraldry?
To me, heraldry is about myths, chivalry, history, the Middle Ages,
chivalry and feudalism. Thats why people find it interesting. Maybe I'm
wrong - maybe its just about aristocracy, beaurocracy, and a dying
nobility jealousy trying to hold on to 'their' little subject.
Well, that's MY cards on the table!!
--
Matt Wilson
Heraldic Artist
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
>
> Here is the crux of the matter. Ought all coutries to have such rules.
> I feel that they should not. Louis' position is based on his belief that a
> hierarchy should be formally incorporated into the social structure. I
> am an
> egalitarian, and so am dead set against this. Both of our positions have
> old traditions within heraldry. What I disagree with is that Louis
> simply equates heraldry with hiearchy, and denies the other heraldic
> traditions. It simply is not accurate.
I think I stand somewhere in the middle in all this.....in some countries, eg
Scotland, heraldry=hierarchy.....in others, eg Switzerland, it does not.
My own view is that self-assumption of arms is a bad thing and that in
countries with no current heraldic authority, eg the USA, then some
authority should be formed to control heraldic usage in that country.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> >With all due respect, I totally disagree with you. In fact heraldic tradition in most
> >European countries accepts that the possession of a coat-of-arms is proof
> >of nobility. In most of the German states, for exanple, the first grant of a title
>
> This is a non sequitur. In Danmark, the granting of a knighthood is always
> accompanied by an audience with the queen. Does that make anyone who's
> had an audience a knight? Knights of the highest ranks (Knight of the
> Elephant, Knight Great Cross of Dannebrog) get their arms displayed in
> the curch of Frederiksborg Slot. This means that those who have no
> arms assume them on getting this honor. Does that make every armigerous
> Dane a knight great cross?
I don't see the point you're trying to make here....the two examples you've given
ARE logical non-sequiters.
> >No, i am not saying that (or, at least, I did not mean to!). If someone thinks
> >that he is of sufficient rank to be armigerous, ie that he has reached what
> >is often referred to as "the port of gentility", then he should have the courage
> >of his convictions and apply for a grant of arms.
>
> Apply to who? Are you saying that Americans (or Danes, for that matter)
> should apply to some judge in Scotland?
If you'd seen the very beginning of this thread, I said that I could only speak from
the viewpoint of a British armiger. The fact that there is no heraldic authority
in the USA is regrettable but that does not mean I have to then condone them
assuming arms, an action which from a British viewpoint is against our armorial
practice. Someone looking from a Danish viewpoint might well have a different
perspective on this.
> The simple fact of the matter is that in much of Europe, assumed arms
> have been the rule for centuries. If a craftsman needed a seal, he
> would often put his "bom{rke" (whatever that is called in English)
> inside a shield shape. This was as good an achievment as any.
This is an example of "burgher" heraldry which is not recognised in
Britain.
> I think it is wrong of you to try to restrict the use of heraldry
> to the snob effect alone. It has many other possiblities.
In Britain having a properly granted or inherited coat-of-arms cannot be
a "snob" thing as the full achievement is a plain statement of the armiger's
position in life: it tells the world if he is a gentleman, a knight or a peer....if
a knight what orders he belongs...if a peer what rank he holds....it is in
effect a little potted biography.
What would be snobbish would be if someone assumed sich arms, thereby
claiming to be something which he hadn't got the courage to have verified by
applying for a grant or confirmation.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> : Assuming someone else's name is not quite the same as assuming someone
> : else's title.....and why else would someone assume a title if not with the
> : intent
> : to pass themselves off as the holder of the title?
>
> Your question has no answer, since there are no titles in the US. Why
> would someone assume the name of King of America if not with the intent
> to pass themselves off as the king of America? But there is no king of
> America.
Francois...you are totally missing the point I am trying to make...and yes! I
do know that there are no legal titles in the USA (this is a discussion amongst
experts and being patronising does NOT help!)......calling oneself "King of
America" would be silly but what if some conman dressed himself up to the nines
and swished into Sachs Fifth Avenue and announced to the awestruck
assistants there that he was the Earl of Dudley (especially if he'd managed to
perfect an English accent).....that would be an obvious example of "passing off",
especially if he ovtained credit or some such other advantage on the strength
of this bogus title!
>
> : > No. Good grief, there has never been any nobility in the US. How can one
> : > construe assumption of arms to be an usurpation of honors which have never
> : > existed in the US? In France, in Germany, in Austria, where nobility has
> : > been inexistent for almost all of this century, how could the assumption
> : > of arms be so construed? I think your insular perspective is warping
> : > your judgment here.
> :
> : I am, of course, aware that there has never been any nobility in the US (in
> : colonial days matters were slightly different).....but I do not see how this
> : could be justification of usurping the honours granted in another country.
>
> This is strange reasoning. According to you, heraldry denotes nobility in
> the UK, therefore no one in the rest of the world can use heraldry if they
> are not noble, because that would be usurping nobility. It doesn't matter
> whether there is any nobility in the other country. It doesn't matter whether
> the other country cannot possibly see any usurpation of something that
> doesn't exist in that country. The whole world should avoid offending
> England?
Right at the beginning of this thread I said that I could only speak from an
English viewpoint......I admit that I am perhaps speaking from a
doctrinaire viewpoint AND I also agree that there are certain other
countries, eg Switzerland, which have an ancient and respected tradition
of heraldry but have no native nobility. It is up to every country to
regulate its own heraldic affairs. BUT what I am against is a free for all
assumption of arms.
When I use the equation heraldry=nobility I am speaking more from a wider
European perspective than from the narrow English one!!!
> : This is simply bad taste and tacky....but, after all, that is typical of
> : Americans so
> : I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised.
>
> Same goes for the tasteless French, I suppose.
I have great respect for the French!!!!!
> : Of course I'm speaking from an insular perspective.....right at the beginning of
> : this thread I warned that I could only speak from the point of view of a British
> : armiger.
>
> And I started this whole thread with the assumption that the person inquiring
> about arms was an American. I have no comments to make on what goes on in
> Britain, where regulations exist. I am speaking from the perspective of
> almost anywhere else, and more specifically, from the unregulated Continent
> and the US. If someone in the US asks me whether he can use arms, I won't
> answer: "unless you are descended from English gentry, forget it." If
> there is to be any heraldry here, (or in France, or in Germany), it'll have
> to be more than a hobby for Anglophiles and peer-watchers.
Hmm....I think we're getting a bit hot under the collar here!!!
> : To give you a parallel example.....in the US you treat your national flag
> : [deleted]
>
> The example is bad for several reasons:
> * in the US the right to burn the flag is protected by the Constitution; some
> people might be upset if you burn it, neither I nor the Supreme Court would
> be.
> * The US flag is, fundamentally, an American institution. I strongly reject
> the notion that Britain has any kind of monopoly on heraldry. It did not
> invent it, it even uses a foreign language to describe it. It may be the
> country where it has remained the most vibrant, but that in no way confers
> any privilege on Britons over the determination of what heraldry is.
I am not suggesting nor have I suggested that Britain has any kind of monopoly
on heraldry.....but in Britain the grant of a coat of arms is an honour granted
by the authority of the Crown and is therefore highly regarded. On any heraldic
question I can only say "Yes..but the British position is this......". I am certainly
not trying to impose our view on another country, just explain how we would
see it....AND, as the country with, as you have said, the most vibrant heraldic
tradition, the British view must carry a certain weight.
> Hence, equating assumption of arms by non-noble Americans to the burning
> of the US flag by a UK citizen is just plain wrong. The US flag is a
> US emblem, how you treat it I may read as an expression of what you
> think of the US. Heraldry is *not* a British institution, and when
> a German or an Italian or an American assume arms, he need not pay
> much heed to what British armigers might think. It's not because
> driving on the right of the road is illegal in the UK that I in the
> US should drive my car on the left of the road.
You've missed my point here which, I concede, was probably badly expressed. I
used the flag analogy as it is the only thing I could think of that the Americans
take seriosuly. As I have just implied above, I am not saying that heraldry is
a Bitish institution nor have I said that you should particualrly heed the British
viewpoint. But at the beginning of this thread you asked for people's views
and I simply gave you the British view.....and now I'm being shot down in flames
for it!! Be fair!!!
> Now, in 1696, when Louis XIV ordered registration of coats of arms, 115,000
> arms were registered, of which 80,000 belonging to commoners. Does that
> upset you greatly?
Not at all...the majority of arms in the UK belong to commoners, ie outside the peerage.
And if that is heraldic practice in France, then fine!!.
> : Sure, let Americans adopt coats of arms if they want to...but don't expect me to
> : accept them as being "genuine" nor for me not to laugh behind their backs at them
> : for such "nouveau riche" pretentiousness
>
> I find it ironic that assumption of arms would be interpreted as nouveau riche
> behavior, when in Britain L2000 (and, I suppose, no criminal record) buys you
> a coat of arms and the feeling of being special. I wonder what you think of
> Elton John's behavior: ancien riche, perhaps?
Again, you've missed the point. As I've said on several occasions, the Kings of
Arms would only grant you arms if you have reached a certain "status" in life...there
are no hard and fast rules of what an "eminent person" is.....it is often taken nowadays
to be the possession of a recognised professional qualification, a commission from
the Crown (eg a military officer or a justice of the peace), appointment to high
ranking posts (Minister of the Crown, Lord Lieutenant, High Sherriff, etc.).....it certainly
is not governed by the wealth of the individual. The grant of a coat-of-arms in
England confers no status whatsoever.....it is merely the confirmation that one has
achieved that status.
What about Elton John?
> Whether or not they are "genuine" is a difficult matter. Certainly, they
> didn't cost L2000, but that's not a measure of genuineness. What that
> measures is how much some people care about heraldry, and that's something
> I fully respect. What a "genuine" coat of arms is in a country which has
> no heraldic authority is perhaps impossible to define. But then again,
> France (except for about a decade after 1696, and 1808-14) never had a
> heraldic authority, and I don't think we'd want to toss out the whole
> French armory as "not genuine".
I think the level of fees payable is somewhat of a red herring.....the Irish grant
to my grandfather 10 years ago cost only 75...now they're charging 1,600....
inflation has a lot to answer for!!!!
I agree with you that "genuine" is a diffiuclt concept in a country with ho heraldic
authority.
> I suggest you look at non-British reference books. Pastoureau's Traite
> d'Heraldique contains most of the information I cited (and it is a fully
> referenced book, unusual for French scholarship). And I was just
> recently noticing an article in the Archives d'Heraldique Suisses on
> "Peasant Heraldry in Switzerland", going back to the 14th c. I challenge
> you to show me any piece of Old Regime legislation in France that bars
> commoners from bearing arms.
I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick about my views on this!
> : I beleive that Gayre in his book "The Nature of Arms" (which I have leant to someone
> : and so cannot immediately refer to it) talks about this situation in France. Are we not
> : here talking about "burger" or "burgher" arms?
>
> I doubt that the 13th c. Normandy peasants or the 15th c. Narbonne Jews
> were burghers in any sense of the word. And what if they were? What
> kind of proposition will you put forth: "heraldry was reserved to
> nobility, except when it wasn't"? Or will you count the 80,000 commoners
> I cited as an "exception"?
It's not my proposition but an accepted aspect of European heraldry.....indeed in
England we do not accept the concept at all as we say that heraldry is the mark of
the gentleman.....the vast majority of whom are commoners and not members of
the aristocracy. Scotland, as ever, has a slightly different view point.....the current
Lord Lyon, I understand, is reserving judgement on this point!!!
> Concerning Henry V's writ, I have seen the text, and it clearly only
> deals with members of the armed expedition. I don't see how that
> extrapolates to the rest of society. The visitations begin much later.
But the Visitations were also to control the assumption of arms.
>
> And why would "what Britain does today" be "what should be"? The "lax
> control" you speak of has been a reality on the continent for centuries.
> Britain has been an anomaly for centuries. Now you may fix in your mind
> the ideal state of heraldry to be somewhere in 1200, before differencing
> disappeared, before Jews and peasants and other low-lifes usurped arms,
> [***irony alert! Irony alert! Irony alert! ***]
> but that would be perfectly arbitrary. (And would certainly preclude
> a few modern practices, like the grant of arms for a fee).
Again, you've missed the point that I am only speaking from a British viewpoint
(which is difficult as often the three British heraldic authorities take differering
views on certain heraldic matters!!!) BUT as I have said above I am not trying
to impose my view on you......yet you appear to be trying to impose your
view on us (you appear to be saying that Britiain is wrong to strictly regulate
heraldic practice.....or have I misinterpreted you as much as you've
misinterpreted me!!!).
For the record....I think the ideal state of heraldry in Britiain is 1995!!!!
> : As I explained, the Officers of Arms are part of the Royal Household and by
> : attending at public ceremonies are merely carrying out their duties.
>
> Are they usually men of means, who can afford to devote their time to
> this occupation? (I'm just being curious here.) Are all members
> of the Royal Household paid similar wages?
You have to distinquish the role of the Officers in Ordinary as members of the
Royal Household and as practitioners of heraldry at the College of Arms.
The officers are usually not people of means (I hope not as I would dearly love
to be one!).
All Officers in Ordinary of the College have the right to conduct an individual
practice in heraldry and genealogy, and can earn money by this. The extent to
which individual officers practise varies; some specialize in particular aspects
of heraldry or genealogy. There is a rotation whereby the Heralds and Pursuivants
take turns "in waiting" for a week at a time. It is the custom of the College that
all enquries, whether written and not addressed to a particular Herald, or in person,
which are received that week become the business of the Officer in waiting. An
applicant thereby becomes the client of the individual officer from whom he first
commissions work. In this way a Herald can build up his own independent practice,
rather like a barrister.
The fees charged for Grants of Arms and other services are divided between the
Herald who acts as agent, the painter and the scrivener invovled in the work, and the
Colelge itself, according to a precisely laid down set of rules. The lion's share goes
to the Colelge, and is the source of income for the upkeep of the building.
The level of salaries paid to members of the Royal Household are many and varied.
For example, the Director of Finance receives about 45,000 per year plus a very
nice "grace and favour" apartment in Kensington Palace!!! For some reason the
Officers in Ordinary have been the "poor relations"!!!!
Judy Gerjuoy
of the SCA) who want arms - or want to know what their "family" arms are,
really ARE to a large extent trying to pass themselves off as someone
else. They, for the most part, don't want to make up new arms to pass
down to their children - they want to show the "John Doe" arms, and
refer to the lands that they SHOULD have back in the old country, etc.
They want to have a connection with nobility - and to feel that they are
noble also.
I don't think it is appropriate to tell someone that knows nothing about
heraldry "Oh, your name is Smith - these are the Smith family arms, go
use it", because the people involved don't understand. They don't know
what armory is, and what it signifies, and what its purpose is.
And, we now live in a global community for a large part. For instance,
one of the young girls I know is going off to Scotland for her
doctorate. I would hate to tell people, go ahead, use these arms, and
have them get into legal trouble.
I have seen accounts in LEXIS of cases involving (mis)use of heraldry in
Scotland - my gut feeling is that it happens every couple of years ago - I
would have to find that set of papers and go through it, but I do
remember when I ran the printout about 18 months ago there was at least
one case - and I think two, in the 90's. Since that was mid 93, that
seems to bear out my feeling.
Judy Gerjuoy (202) 737-4609 Jae...@access.digex.net
Louis Epstein
: Also the idea of trying to change to constitution on this issue would be
: pointless.
The Constitution picks on nobility,but not heraldry.
(I would guess the National Archives or Library of Congress would be the
parent body for a National Heraldic Register...as I've said,it might work
IF ENTIRELY SUPPORTED BY USER FEES.However,what might a commercially
oriented heraldic office run like?"You want griffins for supporters,eh?
Why,for just $5,000 more I can upgrade you to dragons...")
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein (lep...@j51.com) wrote:
: : Francois Velde (ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : : in...@londwill.demon.co.uk (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) writes:
: [Francois]
: : : The point I was trying to raise, and I think this is what Simon also raised,
: : : is that there is no international jurisdiction for any of these matters.
: [Louis]
: : However,we would be better off if there was one....and should try to behave
: : as if there were.
: : : This question of multiple jurisdictions came up when we discussed
: : : renunciations of peerages, and several said: "you can't renounce a
: : : peerage." Maybe not under British law, but that doesn't mean you can't
: : : renounce it under American law.
: : Since the peerage only has meaning in the context of British law,others are
: : irrelevant.
: : : By the same logic, the rules about mandatory differencing and uniqueness
: : : of the claimant to a coat have no reason to apply in countries where
: : : they don't apply, even if the ancestry of the coat is British.
: : Yes they do...however few countries HAVE such rules,all OUGHT to.
: Here is the crux of the matter. Ought all coutries to have such rules.
: I feel that they should not. Louis' position is based on his belief that a
: hierarchy should be formally incorporated into the social structure. I
: am an egalitarian, and so am dead set against this. Both of our positions
: have old traditions within heraldry. What I disagree with is that Louis
: simply equates heraldry with hiearchy, and denies the other heraldic
: traditions. It simply is not accurate.
I was not getting into social-class regulations of heraldry at all,repelled
as I am by egalitarianism...I was referring to cadency marks,which are
part of my belief that it should not be possible for any two individuals
to bear the same heraldic achievement,as arms should identify individuals.
("Right to bear arms" makes one think of firearms,should we rename the
thread?)
Francois Velde
things down a bit, but let's avoid calling each other tacky and tasteless,
shall we?
in...@londwill.demon.co.uk (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) writes:
: Right at the beginning of this thread I said that I could only speak from an
: English viewpoint......I admit that I am perhaps speaking from a
: doctrinaire viewpoint AND I also agree that there are certain other
: countries, eg Switzerland, which have an ancient and respected tradition
: of heraldry but have no native nobility. It is up to every country to
: regulate its own heraldic affairs. BUT what I am against is a free for all
: assumption of arms.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, of course, but the "free for
all" is exactly how heraldry got started and how it lived for a long time.
Switzerland, which you cite, never had grants of arms, which means that
all of Swiss heraldry down to this very day is the fruit of exactly such
a "free for all".
: When I use the equation heraldry=nobility I am speaking more from a wider
: European perspective than from the narrow English one!!!
I think you are quite wrong here. The only proof you've offered until now
is the non-sequitur that Klaus Ole picked up: in Germany, a grant of knighthood
entailed a grant of arms. That says that A implies B. But it says nothing
about whether B implies A, whether bearing arms implies rank.
: On any heraldic
: question I can only say "Yes..but the British position is this......". I am
: certainly
: not trying to impose our view on another country, just explain how we would
: see it....AND, as the country with, as you have said, the most vibrant
: heraldic
: tradition, the British view must carry a certain weight.
That's a nice way to put it, and much better than your promise to laugh
behind the back of the Swiss. And, if Britain were carrying on a tradition
that had disappeared in other countries, those views would carry weight indeed.
But this is not the case here.
: You've missed my point here which, I concede, was probably badly expressed. I
: used the flag analogy as it is the only thing I could think of that the
: Americans
: take seriosuly. As I have just implied above, I am not saying that heraldry
: is
: a Bitish institution nor have I said that you should particualrly heed the
: British
: viewpoint. But at the beginning of this thread you asked for people's views
: and I simply gave you the British view.....and now I'm being shot down in
: flames
: for it!! Be fair!!!
You were doing more than that. you were asserting that assumption of arms
by an American would be usurpation of British honors, that it would be
wrong, ridiculous, nouveau riche, etc. It's like saying that
driving on the right on the New Jersey turnpike is a violation of British
driving regulations. So what? The point *you* have missed is that heraldry
has different uses in different countries. In Britain, where self-assumption
has been prohibited for centuries, it denotes either a grant of arms by an
offical authority or an inheritance. You seem to carry this very far and
interpret arms as the mark of a special status, gentry or nobility. Fine.
But can you at least conceive that heraldry in, say, Switzerland, cannot
possibly, under any circumstances, carry the same connotations? And that
the Swiss have been doing things this way for centuries, and that you cannot
say they are wrong or lax? "I'm sorry, fellas, you've been doing this since
1150 but you're just plain wrong: you see, we in London do things differently,
so you must be wrong." Heraldry has different uses in different countries,
that's all.
Now, given that heraldry has different meanings in different countries,
why should its meaning in the US be the same as its meaning in the UK,
given that the US is lacking two essential ingredients to the UK view,
namely a heraldic authority and a concept of gentry/nobility? Instead,
the US should look to the heraldic traditions of those countries whence
most of its citizens came from, i.e. Germany, Scandinavia, etc, or else
look at Switzerland, with its long tradition of democracy and absence
of nobility. It should also look at its own spirit, because it would
make no sense to transplant a completely alien institution if there
isn't a modicum of compatibility. The examples I gave concerning
assumption of names should suggest to you that English-style regulations
of heraldry would be quite contrary to the spirit of US laws and mores.
Other aspects of English heraldry are of paramount interest, however.
Obviously the language of blazon should be the one devised in England
over the centuries (give or take a silly quirk like dropping commas);
the style of composition might well be influenced by British style,
etc, etc. But in the end, we drive on the right, you drive on the left.
: Not at all...the majority of arms in the UK belong to commoners, ie outside
: the peerage.
You know full well that the English concept of nobility is more restrictive
than the Continental one. In France, nobility would include what you call
gentry in the UK. The 80,000 commoners would not even have qualified as
gentry in the UK.
: And if that is heraldic practice in France, then fine!!.
That's a big chunk fo the Continent that does not follow your equation of
heraldry with nobility or gentry.
: What about Elton John?
He bought himself a coat of arms (a beautiful one, IMO). So I suppose he
has achieved a certain status in the UK. Whether that status has to do
more with gentry or the balance of trade, I don't know, but if Elton John
can get arms in the UK, surely Michael Jackson could assume arms in the US?
: I think the level of fees payable is somewhat of a red herring.....the Irish grant
: to my grandfather 10 years ago cost only 75...now they're charging 1,600....
: inflation has a lot to answer for!!!!
The example you give certainly shows that it is not a red herring. Adjusting
for the inflation rate would explain a fee of 150, not 1600.
: > I doubt that the 13th c. Normandy peasants or the 15th c. Narbonne Jews
: > were burghers in any sense of the word. And what if they were? What
: > kind of proposition will you put forth: "heraldry was reserved to
: > nobility, except when it wasn't"? Or will you count the 80,000 commoners
: > I cited as an "exception"?
:
: It's not my proposition but an accepted aspect of European heraldry
What is: the vacuous proposition I gave above, which says that A is B unless
it isn't? Or the proposition that heraldry was reserved for nobility?
In which case explain to me why the International Academy of Heraldry
devoted a full volume in 1983 to the arms of non-nobles?
:.....indeed in
: England we do not accept the concept at all as we say that heraldry is the
: mark of
: the gentleman.....the vast majority of whom are commoners and not members of
: the aristocracy.
Please, Patrick, let's not play word games. We know that nobility in
the UK is a much more restricted concept than on the Continent, where
a noble father transmits nobility to all his children, whether or not
they inherit his title. If you state that heraldry is the exclusive
mark of a hereditary status called gentry in the UK and nobility on
the Continent, I have already shown you wrong, and would ask you to
look up Continental references before you go on asserting that it is
"an accepted aspect of European heraldry."
: > Concerning Henry V's writ, I have seen the text, and it clearly only
: > deals with members of the armed expedition. I don't see how that
: > extrapolates to the rest of society. The visitations begin much later.
:
: But the Visitations were also to control the assumption of arms.
Yes, of course, but my point was that generalized control over assumption
of arms began in the 16th c. You countered with Henry V's writ, hence
my reply. I'm not denying that England has been controlling arms for
a long time, only that it did so in medieval times.
:......yet you appear to be trying to impose your
:view on us (you appear to be saying that Britiain is wrong to strictly regulate
:heraldic practice.....or have I misinterpreted you as much as you've
:misinterpreted me!!!).
Probably. I am only saying that Britain, in this respect, is an anomaly. That
does not mean it is wrong. It just means it is unusual, and does not represent
the norm, both in the sense of the normal, and in the sense of the normative.
If you feel offended by Americans or Swiss assuming arms, I can't help it.
Simon Kershaw
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article: <3q4k58$q...@hydrogen.smallworld.co.uk>
> simon....@smallworld.co.uk (Simon
> Kershaw) writes:
> > Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility? What is
> > nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else) care about honours
> > granted by the British Crown?
> >
> I'm quite shocked, Simon...we sem to be disagreeing with each other!!! <Grin>
>
> OK...as an example, in Scotland the grant of a coat of arms says quite plainly
> that the grantee is then to be regarded as a member of the noblesse of Scotland.
> The legal view as expressed by one of HM Judge's (ie Lord Lyon) os that a grant
> of arms in Scotland is a grant of nobility. If an American were to go round
> saying
> that he was the Duke of Sussex or suchlike, then that would be a clear case of
> passing himself off to be something that he plainly wasn't.....to assume a coat
> of
> arms is in my book exactly the same.
Yes, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to England and
Wales, not Scotland. An English grant does not, so far as I am aware,
confer or recognise such a concept of nobility. Armigerous Englishman used
to refer to themselves as e.g., "Nicholas Wadham, Armiger" and as a
"gentleman of coat-armour".
> > A coat of arms signifies ... identity. Any Tom, Dick or Harry should
> > certainly adopt or be granted arms so that he can identify himself
> > properly. How else is one meant to seal a letter? :-)
>
> If he is not of sufficient rank to be granted arms then it is wrong for him
> to assume them....he should apply to a competant authority for a grant.
Sorry, I was unclear again. My phrase "adopt or be granted" was meant to
implicitly recognise a diversity of practice between say England (where
Arms must clearly be granted by the Crown's officers) and certain other
countries, such as the USA, where one can make a =prima facie= case that
arms may be adopted.
Either way, my point was that if a person needs to identify themselves then
they should become armigerous, either by grant or adoption depending on
their circumstances.
> > (I don't dispute that one should pay appropriate fees for pretty
> > letters patent and other artwork, and for necessary design and searches
> > etc. But I'm unconvinced that such significant (not enormous, but
> > still significant) sums should be necessary to *purchase* a coat of
> > arms.)
>
> I can only speak for the College. The fee has to be split many ways
> to pay for the College and its staff (this is, after all, the College's sole
> source of income) and in this day and age the fees are not
> excessive.
Again, I recognise the practicalities of the situation, that the College
needs must maintain its records, sadly without state support**. But one
must question whether it is strictly necessary for it to support three
kings, six heralds and four pursuivants. Scotland seems to manage
perfectly well with a *much* smaller number. Is it the case that the fees
are so high because they are divided so many ways?
** Now there's an idea for National Lottery money, and it wouldn't cost
*me* a penny
--
Simon Kershaw
Simon....@Smallworld.co.uk (work) Cambridge
s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk (home) England
Lorne Gray
Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet
Distribution:
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: There are a few reports of early cases before the Court of Chivalry, but
the most
: noted cases are Carminow v Scrope, Scrope v Grosvenor, Lovell v Morley, and
: Grey v Hastings. These cases make it abundantly clear that a right to arms is
: only established by descent from one who has borne arms from time immemorial
: (this is a legal phrase which in the Common Law is taken to be the year
1189, but
: in the Court of Chivalry it means 1066) or by grant from a lawful authority,
such
: as a sovereign, or a king of arms acting with the authority of the sovereign.
This is a bit of a can of worms you've opened here, so I ask the
patience of the readers of this newsgroup. This is going to get
complicated!
Here you are referring to a very interesting theory that was developed by
G.D. Squibb, Q.C., in his wonderful book, "The High Court of Chivalry",
Oxford at the ClarendonjPress, 1959. Squibb represented the College in
the Manchester Palace of VArieties case, and was later asked to write a
book on the Court of Chivalry using the manuscripts in the College
archive. The College has maintained for some time that people in England
could not "legally" assume arms on their own authority. Squibb tries to
bolster this view in his book.
The main problem that he faced was the fact that one Oswald Barron had
written a series of articles (with others) between 1900 and 1905 in a
magazine called "The Ancestor" which used analysis of correspondence from
William Dugdale, and other members of the College, which demolished this
position. Barron, (who was himself created an Herald Extraordinary for
the Coronation of Gerove VI) showed that during the visitations, a person
who could show continuous user of arms for 60 years was deemed to have
gained a prescriptive right to those arms. Aperson could assume arms,
and, if the use carried on for 60 years, his family could register them
with the Heralds. This is what happened. This is the real Law of ARms
in England. Anyone can adopt arms and gain the right to exclusive use of
them by 60 years continuous use. This is what the Heralds themselves
implemented!!!
Naturally, the College is most eager to shoot this down. Squibb's
approach is a fair one by and large, relying more on crativity than the
bombast that characterized the work of Fox-Davies, etc.
Squibb tries to undermine this by arguing that really, one had to show
the use of assumed arms back to 1066, and that the 60 years usage was not
in itself, taken as a user sufficient to give a prescriptive right. He
argues that the Heralds just decided to assume that if a family showed
use for 60 years, then they had use back to the conquest.
The key to this argument is the theory that assumed arms need use dating
from the conquest to be valid. Let me make it very clear that NO CASE or
fragment of one states this, either explicitly or implicitly.
Squibb draws this conclusion from the fact that in Scrope v Grosvenor and
Lovel v. Morley, it was ofted pleaded or stated by witnesses that the
arms were borne from beyond the time of living memory of anyone present.
Squibb concludes
from this that an attempt was being made to establish a use "from time
immemorial" On page 180 he writes:
"Under the common law time immemorial was seemed to date from the
accession of Richard I in 1189, but the wording of the depostions in
Scrope v. Grosvenor indicates that in the Court of Chivalry the Conquest
was regarded as the limit of legal memory."
This is a brilliant dodge. First he argues that, since the wording is
similar, that what is being proved here is use from time immemorial.
Then he says that, in the Court of Chivalry, that dates from 1066, not 1189.
Time immemorial is a very specific legal concept in the Common law. The
cut off date is 1189. If a Civil law court, such as the Court of
Chivalry, has pleading in it that state usage back to 1066, then I think
it is reasonable to assume that they are NOT operating on the concept of
time immemorial, but something else completely.
I think that they were simply trying to establish who had started using
the arms first, but could not claim any further back than the Conquest. Why?
I submit my own theory here, which is that, as good Norman Knights, they
couldn't plead usage in England dating back before 1066 for the very
simple reason that they were not IN England before then.
(as an aside, We now know that arms were not in use at the time of the
conquest, but the evidence in these cases was to that effect, and was
accepted at face value.)
Back now to Squibb, where we left off:
"This is borne out by the case of Carminow v. Scrope, [snip] According
to these witnesses it was proved that Carminow's ancestors had borne
Azure, a bend or since the time of King Arthur and that Scrope's
ancestors had brone the same coat since the time of William the
Cnoqueror. On this evidence, the nature of which is not specified, it
was adjudged that both might bear the arms entire. This decision is only
explicable on the basis that both parties were entitled to the coat by
virtue of user from time immemorial. Had the right depended on prior
assumption, Carminow would have been solely entitled to the exclusion of
Scrope."
(at this point, he puts in a footnote)
"One of the witnesses in Scrope v Grosvenor explains the decision in
Carminow v Scrope on the unconvincing ground that Cronwall was once a
separate kingdom. There is another account of Carmonow v Scrope [snip]
and states that Carminow was sentenced to bear the arms with a labek for
a difference. Hals's account bears signs of anachronism and may be an
attempt to exlain the label which was undoubtedly used by some of the
later Carminows."
So Squibb's argument for the use of time immemorial (which is a wild
stretch anyway, because of the different years used as a cut off point)
rests on the fact that "This decision is only explicable on the basis
that both parties were entitled to the coat by virtue of user from time
immemorial"
I put forward an alternative explaination, namely that Carminow, as a
Cornishman tracing his use back to King Arthur, could have a user prior
to the Norman Scrope. But how could a Norman court uphold a right to
prior possession from a Cornishman over a Norman? The whole legitimacy
of the Royal House rested on acknowledging the rights accorded to the
Normans by conquest. Hence they both got the arms, or, as I think more
likely, especially in light of subsequent usage, the Cornishman was
required to difference his arms. This I feel a much more likely
explaination in its own right, apart from the fact that it saves us
having to drag in the idea of usage from time immemorial, which is
totally unsupported, indeed contradicted, by the facts.
Next time I will deal with the writ of Henry VII, and maybe more on the
Scittish question, if I can track down a copy of "Scots Heraldry".
Louis Epstein
: And I started this whole thread with the assumption that the person inquiring
: about arms was an American. I have no comments to make on what goes on in
: Britain, where regulations exist. I am speaking from the perspective of
: almost anywhere else, and more specifically, from the unregulated Continent
: and the US. If someone in the US asks me whether he can use arms, I won't
: answer: "unless you are descended from English gentry, forget it." If
: there is to be any heraldry here, (or in France, or in Germany), it'll have
: to be more than a hobby for Anglophiles and peer-watchers.
The person asked about finding a coat of arms to which he was *already
entitled*,not how to go about getting one.
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>I don't see the point you're trying to make here....the two examples you've given
>ARE logical non-sequiters.
That was my point. My examples were very close parallels to your argument.
Your argument:
In Germany, a grant of nobility was accompanied by a grant of arms. Thus
all armigers are nobles.
My argument:
In Denmark becoming a knight grand cross is accompanied by a grant of arms.
Thus all armiger are knights grand cross.
You admitted that my argument is a non sequitur. What is yours?
>The fact that there is no heraldic authority
>in the USA is regrettable but that does not mean I have to then condone them
>assuming arms, an action which from a British viewpoint is against our armorial
>practice.
What has British practise got to do with the USA?
>> The simple fact of the matter is that in much of Europe, assumed arms
>> have been the rule for centuries. If a craftsman needed a seal, he
>> would often put his "bom{rke" (whatever that is called in English)
>> inside a shield shape. This was as good an achievment as any.
>This is an example of "burgher" heraldry which is not recognised in
>Britain.
But recognised just about everywhere else. You are claiming that in this
area, where Britain has a practise that deviates significantly from the norm,
everybody else should conform to British practise. That has as much merit
as an attempt to make Americans drive in left side of the road.
But you are of right, strictly speaking. Your original statement was:
Leaving aside burgher arms, only nobles have arms. This is true, though
meaningless. Leaving aside clothes worn by adults, only children wear
clothes.
Another question for you: in another post, you said that arms should be
reserved for emminent men, yet you have also spoken in favor of heritable
arms. Which do you want? You can't have it both ways.
Klaus O K
Simon Kershaw
>In article <3q4k58$q...@hydrogen.smallworld.co.uk> simon....@smallworld.co.uk (Simon Kershaw) writes:
>>The state regulates the adoption of arms to prevent duplication: there
>>is little other justification for such a state monopoly.
>Surely heraldic regulation has a greater purpose than this - the trademarks
>office could deal with simple duplication or copywrite infringement. Surely
>it is desirable that there be systematic approach to design, inclusion of
>elements and usage of arms, and protection of certain symbols. If arms are to
>signify identity they should do so unambiguously and meaningfully. While I
>agree that the right to obtain arms should not be unduly restrictive, that
>hardly means they should be able to create whatever arms they choose.
Yes, you are right, but I omitted this for rhetorical reasons.
(other stuff I agree with omitted as well)
--
simon
Simon....@Smallworld.co.uk (work)
s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk (home)
Simon Kershaw
>("Right to bear arms" makes one think of firearms,should we rename the
>thread?)
Louis, it was a deliberate allusion on my part when I renamed the
thread. I don't expect all non-Americans to get the allusion but I
thought it was quite apposite. Suppose the Supreme Court decided that
the amendment meant that all Americans were entitled to be
armigerous?! 'twould solve half of the USA's problems at one stroke.
(And please, that is meant to be a slightly-humorous aside, not an
attempt to start a firearms thread/flame-war in rec.heraldry.)
Zach Kessin
>Still, it might help balance things out if everyone kept their family shield
>in the drawer of their bedside tables, as well as the other kind of arms.
Only if we could have swords too.
--Zachary Kessin zke...@tiac.net
x^n+y^n=z^n has no integer Solutions other than 0 for n>2
I have a wonderful proof of this, but it won't fit in a .sig file.
Lorne Gray
Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet
Distribution:
Klaus Ole Kristiansen (kl...@diku.dk) wrote:
: >> The simple fact of the matter is that in much of Europe, assumed arms
: >> have been the rule for centuries. If a craftsman needed a seal, he
: >> would often put his "bom{rke" (whatever that is called in English)
: >> inside a shield shape. This was as good an achievment as any.
: Klaus O K
Klaus, I don't know what a "bomke" is, but I am curious. Are you
referring to those runes or "house marks" (as I once read they were
called) that look like non Roman letters ? If so, could you fill us in a
bit? I've always been curious about those things. What were they
origianlly used for? etc. etc.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <340833...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, May 30, 1995 17.38.31
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 63
In article: <436181...@melkshum.demon.co.uk> Matt Wilson <Ma...@melkshum.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> Ugh
>
> This is getting ridiculous. All the guy did was to profess an interest
> in heraldry.
>
> Concepts such as nobility are getting increasingly irrelavant nowadays.
> If arms imply nobility (ie hereditary class of the highest status)
> only, then maybe I should get another job and chuck all my books etc in
> the bin. It amazes me that with our UK monarchy falling apart people
> should be arguing about proof of nobility. I suggest proof of nobility
> should only be awarded to those with big ears who talk to their plants,
> as Prince Charles has more arms that you could shake a millrind at.
The one thing that has come out of this thread is that different countries
treat coats of arms in different ways......even in this United Kingdom, the
College of Arms views a coat of arms as meaning something different
to that view as held by the Lord Lyon.
I suppose this is what they mean by "richness in diversity"!!!!
>
> The Royal College of Arms charges more money than I can afford to grant
> a coat of arms. What am I supposed to do, forget about it? I can't
> believe that it really costs $3000 to cover administration and the
> (admittedly superb) certicifate. In 200 years, the College may have
> changed beyond recognition, but history will not have done - and
> heraldry is more about history than anything else in my opinion. Why
> should someone who happens to have money be more entitled to arms than
> some of the people on this list who enjoy and know a lot about heraldry?
To a certain extent, the answer to your first question must be "yes".....if I were
to apply for a grant of arms now I certainly couldn't afford it.....the cost of a grant
is about the same as you might expect to pay for a decent second-hand car BUT
the arms could be handed down to your children and grandchildren....I don't think
a second hand car would last that long!!!!
But don't get the wrong impression of the College, please....being wealthy is NOT
a criteria by which the acceptability of a petitioner is judged.....after all, being a
"gentleman" is not something that money can buy.....I even understand that the late
and not-lamented Robert Maxwell was refused a grant because he was not quite
"right".....
oh dear! I suppose you will now all accuse the College of being elitist!!!!!!
> To me, heraldry is about myths, chivalry, history, the Middle Ages,
> chivalry and feudalism. Thats why people find it interesting. Maybe I'm
> wrong - maybe its just about aristocracy, beaurocracy, and a dying
> nobility jealousy trying to hold on to 'their' little subject.
Well, some people find it interesting for those reasons.....I find it interesting
because its a living, working system.....I find modern grants totally
fascinating!!!
> Well, that's MY cards on the table!!
>
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Yes, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to England and
> Wales, not Scotland. An English grant does not, so far as I am aware,
> confer or recognise such a concept of nobility. Armigerous Englishman used
> to refer to themselves as e.g., "Nicholas Wadham, Armiger" and as a
> "gentleman of coat-armour".
Agreed that an English grant does not recognise or confer any form of nobility
BUT the College will only grant arms to "deserving and eminent men" (take that
to include women as well).....and this has been defined as those who have reached
"the port of gentility"....ie have reached a certain status in life which the actuality
of the grant is confirming to all and sundry.
> Sorry, I was unclear again. My phrase "adopt or be granted" was meant to
> implicitly recognise a diversity of practice between say England (where
> Arms must clearly be granted by the Crown's officers) and certain other
> countries, such as the USA, where one can make a =prima facie= case that
> arms may be adopted.
Again I agree, but with the caveat that in some way the adoption should be
controlled and not a free for all so that anyone can assume whatever they like.
> Either way, my point was that if a person needs to identify themselves then
> they should become armigerous, either by grant or adoption depending on
> their circumstances.
Yep.
> Again, I recognise the practicalities of the situation, that the College
> needs must maintain its records, sadly without state support**. But one
> must question whether it is strictly necessary for it to support three
> kings, six heralds and four pursuivants. Scotland seems to manage
> perfectly well with a *much* smaller number. Is it the case that the fees
> are so high because they are divided so many ways?
Don't forget that in Scotland the Officers in Ordinary are civil servants and
are paid salaries.....Lyon Court does not have the same type of overheads
as the College of Arms which is not State-funded.
> ** Now there's an idea for National Lottery money, and it wouldn't cost
> *me* a penny
Yep!
>
--
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
>
> I don't want this to escalate into a flame-war, so I'm trying to tone
> things down a bit, but let's avoid calling each other tacky and tasteless,
> shall we?
Yes...I agree with you entirely on this point.......
I think the basic problem here is that you and I come from two entirely different
schools of heraldic thought here. To take your points and make comments on
them would merely make this a very different message to read!!!
To a certain extent I think we should agree to differ on the rights and wrongs of
assuming arms.
Without actually telephoning the College of Arms and asking the Heralds what they
think on a particular point, there is no easy way to ascertain current thinking on any
particular matter. However, as a guide to what at least one of the Heralds thinks
on this subject, can I quote verbatim Thomas Woodcock (Somerset Herald) in one
of his recent books:
He is writing about European heraldry in general and German heraldy in particular...
A further aspect of the strength of the towns vis-a-vis the monarchy was the
emergence of burgher arms in emulation of noble arms, but separate from
them, and not recognized as bestowing nobiliary status. Prominant
citizens were able with impunity to assume armorial ensigns similar to
those sported by the feudal nobility in states where the emperor's
authoirty was distant and weak. These burgher arms came to be treated
as a different species, and were differenced from noble arms by the use
of the closed tilting helmet to support the crest. Noble arms, by contrast,
sported open helmets with bars. Burgher arms spread to Scandinavia,
where they were freely assumed by merchants in the trading cities of the
Baltic (many of whom were of German descent), but they failed to
become hereditary there, unlike noble arms.
[He goes on to talk about burgher arms becoming a feature of the Low
Countries.]
I suppose that what Woodcock is saying is that arms granted by a monarch in a country
with a nobiliary system confer or confirm nobility or gentility, whereas arms assumed or
adopted in a country with no such nobiliary system, eg Switzerland or USA, cannot confer
or confirm such nobility or gentitlity (which, quite obviously, is logical!!).
This is a position I can certainly accept and no doubt you can as well.
Though it does beg the question whether assumed or adopted arms are in any way
inferior or "second class"......any questions?
> I think you are quite wrong here. The only proof you've offered until now
> is the non-sequitur that Klaus Ole picked up: in Germany, a grant of knighthood
> entailed a grant of arms. That says that A implies B. But it says nothing
> about whether B implies A, whether bearing arms implies rank.
OK...I hear what you're saying here...let me ask a question back; the SMOM,
which is probably the only pan-european nobiliary institution still in existence
now that there in no longer an Emperor, has always accepted that when it is
scrutinising "noble proofs" for admission into its ranks, the possession of
a properly granted coat-of-arms is prima facie evidence that one belongs
to the "untitled nobility". Would you agree with the SMOM on this or not?
> That's a nice way to put it, and much better than your promise to laugh
> behind the back of the Swiss. And, if Britain were carrying on a tradition
> that had disappeared in other countries, those views would carry weight indeed.
> But this is not the case here.
Actually, i have great respect for my fellow europeans, the Swiss...it was the
Americans O was going to laugh at (ONLY JOKING......honest!!)
> You were doing more than that. you were asserting that assumption of arms
> by an American would be usurpation of British honors, that it would be
> wrong, ridiculous, nouveau riche, etc.
No I wasn't......
> The point *you* have missed is that heraldry has different uses in different
> countries.
I am aware of that.....
> You seem to carry this very far and interpret arms as the mark of a special
> status, gentry or nobility.
This is the official view in Scotland (nobility) and in England and Ireland (gentility).
> But can you at least conceive that heraldry in, say, Switzerland, cannot
> possibly, under any circumstances, carry the same connotations?
I have always accepted this...as I said earlier, the Swiss have no native nobility
so how can their heraldry have a nobiliary connotation?
> And that the Swiss have been doing things this way for centuries, and that you cannot
> say they are wrong or lax? "I'm sorry, fellas, you've been doing this since
> 1150 but you're just plain wrong: you see, we in London do things differently,
> so you must be wrong."
I didn't say that...I merely gave the British viewpoint on heraldry within the UK......
.
> Now, given that heraldry has different meanings in different countries,
> why should its meaning in the US be the same as its meaning in the UK,
> given that the US is lacking two essential ingredients to the UK view,
> namely a heraldic authority and a concept of gentry/nobility? Instead,
> the US should look to the heraldic traditions of those countries whence
> most of its citizens came from, i.e. Germany, Scandinavia, etc, or else
> look at Switzerland, with its long tradition of democracy and absence
> of nobility. It should also look at its own spirit, because it would
> make no sense to transplant a completely alien institution if there
> isn't a modicum of compatibility. The examples I gave concerning
> assumption of names should suggest to you that English-style regulations
> of heraldry would be quite contrary to the spirit of US laws and mores.
I have no problem with this PROVIDING that the person assuming arms does
not in any way pretend that his assumed arms have a nobiliary status......this
would preclude the use of coronets and, probably, supporters.
> Other aspects of English heraldry are of paramount interest, however.
> Obviously the language of blazon should be the one devised in England
> over the centuries (give or take a silly quirk like dropping commas);
> the style of composition might well be influenced by British style,
> etc, etc.
[Putting on my scrivener's hat, now....] In the UK it has been good legal practice
for some considerable time now to omit all punctuation from legal documents....
this term encompasses grants of arms which are in the form of letters patent......
the whole purpose of omitting the commas is to avoid ambiguity....I have no
comment to make on whether this improves "understandability" or not!!!!!
> You know full well that the English concept of nobility is more restrictive
> than the Continental one. In France, nobility would include what you call
> gentry in the UK. The 80,000 commoners would not even have qualified as
> gentry in the UK.
I'm not sure that it is more restictive. In Spain, for example, scarcely a family
of eminence has sprung from any origin connected with law, commerce, or
the Church, those "copious fountains" of the aristocracies of England, Venice
or Rome. The Spanish nobility is based almost entirely on military service.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <394702...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, May 30, 1995 18.12.49
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qdr6r$q...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Lorne Gray)
writes:
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : >
> : There are a few reports of early cases before the Court of Chivalry, but
> the most
> : noted cases are Carminow v Scrope, Scrope v Grosvenor, Lovell v Morley, and
> : Grey v Hastings. These cases make it abundantly clear that a right to arms is
> : only established by descent from one who has borne arms from time immemorial
> : (this is a legal phrase which in the Common Law is taken to be the year
> 1189, but
> : in the Court of Chivalry it means 1066) or by grant from a lawful authority,
> such
> : as a sovereign, or a king of arms acting with the authority of the sovereign.
>
> This is a bit of a can of worms you've opened here, so I ask the
> patience of the readers of this newsgroup. This is going to get
> complicated!
>
> Here you are referring to a very interesting theory that was developed by
> G.D. Squibb, Q.C., in his wonderful book, "The High Court of Chivalry",
> Oxford at the ClarendonjPress, 1959. Squibb represented the College in
> the Manchester Palace of VArieties case, and was later asked to write a
> book on the Court of Chivalry using the manuscripts in the College
> archive. The College has maintained for some time that people in England
> could not "legally" assume arms on their own authority. Squibb tries to
> bolster this view in his book.
[Very heavy cutting at this point]
Lorne....first of all may I say that this is one of the best summaries of the "Barron
v Squibb" argument that I've seen for a long time. Well done!
I was actually quoting verbatim Thomas Woodcock (Somerset Herald) and
John Robinson (Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary) from their book "The Oxford
Guide to Heraldry". I would expect that they were drawing heavily on Squibb's
book. My copt of "The High Court of Chivalry" is still in storage (as is my copy
of "Scot's Heraldry") so I will have to get it to re-read before I can make any
meaningful comment.
Squibb represent the "official" view and, as far as I know, this is still the stance
taken by the College. Certainly all the books on heraldry written in the past five
years or so by any of the Officers seem to take the same line on this "can of
worms".
Oswald Barron was always a bit of a "loose cannon".....but he did do some
masterful work in pruning some of the more fanciful verbiage that surrounded
some of the genealogies in works such as Burke's "Landed Gentry". The
Society of Genealogists has all the back copies of "The Ancestor".....I will
take photocopies of Barron's articles and see what he says.
Barron's view of the Heralds' Visitations is certainly not that currently held by
the College of Arms. The Law of Arms is a living entity and can change from
year to year and generation to generation. As far as the Law of Arms in England
is concerned it is, I suppose, the heraldic practice currently operated by the
College. As far as we in England are concerned if the College says that in
English heraldry "x is y" then we have no option but to accept it.
I'm entirely in agreement with your comments on the idiosyncratic view of the
Court of Chivalry that "time immemorial" is 1066 whilst the Common Law defines
it as being 1189. Certainly when posting my response it did occur to me that
there was no identifiable heraldry in 1066!!!!
I'd be interested to see what other people have to say on the Barron v Squibb
argument.
--
Louis Epstein
: In article <687383...@londwill.demon.co.uk>,
: Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Again, I recognise the practicalities of the situation, that the College
: needs must maintain its records, sadly without state support**. But one
: must question whether it is strictly necessary for it to support three
: kings, six heralds and four pursuivants. Scotland seems to manage
: perfectly well with a *much* smaller number. Is it the case that the fees
: are so high because they are divided so many ways?
: ** Now there's an idea for National Lottery money, and it wouldn't cost
: *me* a penny
Are there any more heralds PER CAPITA,though?Scotland is relatively empty.
Louis Epstein
: I don't want this to escalate into a flame-war, so I'm trying to tone
: things down a bit, but let's avoid calling each other tacky and tasteless,
: shall we?
: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) writes:
: : On any heraldic question I can only say "Yes..but the British position is
: : this......". I am certainly not trying to impose our view on another
: : country, just explain how we would see it....AND, as the country with, as
: : you have said, the most vibrant heraldic tradition, the British view must
: : carry a certain weight.
: That's a nice way to put it, and much better than your promise to laugh
: behind the back of the Swiss. And, if Britain were carrying on a tradition
: that had disappeared in other countries, those views would carry weigt
: indeed.
Hmmm...you don't seem prepared to concede this point when it comes to
cadency!
Rideau Herald
Yes, Simon, I thought this was very neat. But you ignore the many
implications inherent in this intrepretation. If all American posters adopt
this out-of-context quote in their signatures ("...the Right to Bear Arms
shall not be infringed upon"), form the NHA (National Heraldry Association)
which would have this motto carved in stone on its office facade, write to
their congressmen, etc. soon the US would be full of corner stores selling
Arms - perhaps "Saturday night specials" purchased by young bloods heading
downtown for a little heraldic mayhem, no doubt they would be sold by mail
order as well, many of them teflon coated, and inevitably some would be
smuggled across the border under the seats of rusty 1980 Ford Fairlaines, to
be distributed around poor neighbourhoods in Windsor. Patrick C-B would go
out of his mind!
Still, it might help balance things out if everyone kept their family shield
in the drawer of their bedside tables, as well as the other kind of arms.
Rideau Herald
Anton Sherwood
: : . . . . Louis' position is based on his belief that a
Louis Epstein <lep...@j51.com> says:
: I was not getting into social-class regulations of heraldry at all,repelled
: as I am by egalitarianism...I was referring to cadency marks,which are
: part of my belief that it should not be possible for any two individuals
: to bear the same heraldic achievement,as arms should identify individuals.
May I mention in passing that there's an important difference between
procedural egalitarianism (equality before the law) and substantive
egalitarianism (equal outcomes)?
--
disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Stranger things have happened.
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>Klaus Ole Kristiansen (kl...@diku.dk) wrote:
>: Another question for you: in another post, you said that arms should be
>: reserved for emminent men, yet you have also spoken in favor of heritable
>: arms. Which do you want? You can't have it both ways.
>Only if you don't acknowledge the concept that lineage can be eminent.
Then I don't understand what you mean by eminent.
Klaus O K
Anton Sherwood
: > > Why? Who said that arms are recognition of nobility?
: > > What is nobility? Why should Americans (or anyone else)
: > > care about honours granted by the British Crown?
: Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > OK...as an example, in Scotland the grant of a coat of arms says
: > quite plainly that the grantee is then to be regarded as a member
: > of the noblesse of Scotland. . . .
Simon Kershaw <s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk> says:
: Yes, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to England and
: Wales, not Scotland. An English grant does not, so far as I am aware,
: confer or recognise such a concept of nobility. Armigerous Englishman
: used to refer to themselves as e.g., "Nicholas Wadham, Armiger" and as
: a "gentleman of coat-armour".
Etymology to the rescue: The root of _noble_ is _gno_ (the `g' is
lost in the positive but retained in the negative i(n)gnoble), related
to _know_: the noble are those who are or can be known, and how
better to be known than by a coat of arms?
The meaning of _noble_ has been narrowed, much like _knight_ (rider)
and _baron_ (freeman); but I think the Scottish usage mentioned above
is a remnant of the older meaning.
Louis Epstein
Francois R. Velde
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU (Francois Velde) writes:
: I think the basic problem here is that you and I come from two entirely
: different schools of heraldic thought here.
Clearly.
: [...] on this subject, can I quote verbatim Thomas Woodcock
I told you to check non-British references :-) The chapter on European
heraldry in the Oxford guide is OK, but contains at least two significant
mistakes (one on the date of the creation of Napoleonic heraldry, the
other on the escutcheon of pretence in Spanish royal arms) which make
me think that perhaps the authors should have skipped the matter altogether.
There is a strand of German literature which has elaborated on the
Waffenrecht (I think that is the phrase), and you can also find
French texts (there is a thesis of 1924) which argue for the equation
nobility=heraldry. But they fly in the face of the evidence, some
of which I gave you. No matter what Woodcock and Robinson would
like to think, heraldry was used by all classes from the 13th c.
onward, and it has nothing to do with weak government authorities.
The peasant seals I cited (*hundreds* of them) date from long before
anyone in government gave a thought to regulating heraldry.
Woodcock's text presupposes that the emperor had a *monopoly* on granting
arms, and then proceeds to read the evidence of non-nobles bearing arms
as 'violations' of that monopoly ("with impunity"). I'd like to see
any evidence that the emperor had, in law, any such monopoly.
France had a regulation on helms: non-noble arms could not use them.
This proves, by the way, that non-noble arms were legally recognized.
Now that does not make them "a separate class" of heraldry, anymore
than putting women's arms in lozenges makes them a separate class.
(After all, clerics couldn't use helms either, that didn't make
their arms in any way inferior, or separate). It's part of the language
of heraldry, one way that elements external to the arms are used
to signify the status of the individual (it's one of the striking
traits of heraldry, in my eyes, that such elements of status are
outside the shield: the shield itself is a rather egalitarian space,
though the whole achievement obviously isn't. Napoleonic heraldry invaded
that space with chiefs reserved for dukes etc.).
: I suppose that what Woodcock is saying is that arms granted by a monarch in
: a country
: with a nobiliary system confer or confirm nobility or gentility, whereas arms : assumed or
: adopted in a country with no such nobiliary system, eg Switzerland or USA,
: cannot confer
: or confirm such nobility or gentitlity (which, quite obviously, is logical!!).
: This is a position I can certainly accept and no doubt you can as well.
No, I'm sorry, I can't. It is historically incorrect. When Louis XIV had
those 80,000 commoners register their arms in 1696, he had no intention
whatsoever of inducting them into the nobility or gentry (for one thing,
that would have gained them tax exemptions).
Obviously, I agree with the second part.
: Though it does beg the question whether assumed or adopted arms are in any way
: inferior or "second class"......any questions?
In a country where both exist (assumed and granted arms), I can easily
imagine that the sovereign bothers to grant arms when he feels there
is something remarkable about the recipient which needs to be acknowlegded:
he distinguished himself in battle, or composed beautiful motets, or
lent large sums of money to the sovereign. In that sense, yes, I can
see that a grant of arms would be a mark of distinction.
: OK...I hear what you're saying here...let me ask a question back; the SMOM,
: which is probably the only pan-european nobiliary institution still in
: existence
Actually, the Order of the Golden Fleece is still in existence, is recognized
as an entity under international law by the Austrian government, and is
very much nobiliary (though of much restricted membership, clearly).
: now that there in no longer an Emperor, has always accepted that when it is
: scrutinising "noble proofs" for admission into its ranks, the possession of
: a properly granted coat-of-arms is prima facie evidence that one belongs
: to the "untitled nobility". Would you agree with the SMOM on this or not?
No. I would cite the example I gave above: any of those 80,000 commoners
who got a properly granted coat-of-arms. They did not belong to the untitled
nobility, a well-defined category in the Old Regime. The SMOM has the wrong
procedure in place, at least in the case of France. What they should do is
require the candidate, if he or she is French, to register with the Association
d'Entraide de la Noblesse Francaise, whose "comite des preuves" is thorough
and strict: they have the books, they know the rules, and they can tell
you if someone is "of noble origin" according to applicable French rules.
(Klaus Ole recently mentioned that Prince Henrik of Denmark was not
admitted).
: I have always accepted this...as I said earlier, the Swiss have no native nobility
: so how can their heraldry have a nobiliary connotation?
: I have no problem with this PROVIDING that the person assuming arms does
: not in any way pretend that his assumed arms have a nobiliary status......
Well, that's unlikely to happen in the US where there is no nobility.
Or in France, or in Germany... (though in those countries it might
be preceived to indicate nobiliary origin---but if enough Jean Dupont
and Pierre Martin sport arms, it will become clear to the general
public that arms per se have no nobiliary implications).
:this
: would preclude the use of coronets and, probably, supporters.
Coronets obviously. Supporters I don't know (I'm aware of the British
perspective on supporters, I don't know how similar it is to Continental
practice).
: > You know full well that the English concept of nobility is more restrictive
: > than the Continental one. In France, nobility would include what you call
: > gentry in the UK. The 80,000 commoners would not even have qualified as
: > gentry in the UK.
: I'm not sure that it is more restictive.
Restrictive in a numerical sense. If only one member of a given family
is noble, that has to be more restrictive than when the whole family is
deemed noble. I gather there are less than 2,000 nobles in England:
as a ratio to population, that's pretty low compared to Germany, or
France (where, in spite of no new creations in 100 years, there are
still 4,000 *families*).
I did not mean restrictive in the sense that access is restricted.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
Francois R. Velde
: : that had disappeared in other countries, those views would carry weigt
: : indeed.
: Hmmm...you don't seem prepared to concede this point when it comes to
: cadency!
That's true. British views carry weight, but they do not tip the scale
in all cases. In this instance, other reasons tilt the other way, mainly
the fact that the tradition in question disappeared fairly early
on (i.e. before modern times). I am not against differencing per se
(in my younger days, when I spent spare time identifying 18th c.
silverware and 16th c. seals, I ardently wished that French nobility
*had* used more differencing!) I just think *systematic* differencing
is unnecessary and impractical, especially for untitled families and
in the present state of inheritance laws (quite different from the 13th
c.). And I suspect those are among the reasons for its disappearance.
It doesn't seem to me that the way it is practiced in England nowadays
is very practical either.
Francois R. Velde
: [Simon wrote:]
: >lep...@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
: >>("Right to bear arms" makes one think of firearms,should we rename the
: >>thread?)
: >Louis, it was a deliberate allusion on my part when I renamed the
: >thread. I don't expect all non-Americans to get the allusion but I
: >thought it was quite apposite.
Actually, Fox-Davies wrote a book titled "the Right to Bear Arms", in
the late 19th c. I don't imagine he was thinking of the 2d amendment
to the US constitution...
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
Kenric D Malmberg
k> <3qel1h$6...@odin.diku.dk>
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Distribution:
Klaus Ole Kristiansen (kl...@diku.dk) wrote:
: Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >The fact that there is no heraldic authority
: >in the USA is regrettable but that does not mean I have to then condone
: >them assuming arms, an action which from a British viewpoint is against
: >our armorial practice.
: What has British practise got to do with the USA?
If they were British arms at the start, then someone using them as 'his'
hereditary arms should follow the hereditary practices. OTOH, if I
decide, as an American citizen, to use a set of arms as a trademark, then
I must follow US, not British, law and practice.
: >> The simple fact of the matter is that in much of Europe, assumed arms
: >> have been the rule for centuries. If a craftsman needed a seal, he
: >> would often put his "bom{rke" (whatever that is called in English)
: >> inside a shield shape. This was as good an achievment as any.
: >This is an example of "burgher" heraldry which is not recognised in
: >Britain.
: But recognised just about everywhere else. You are claiming that in this
: area, where Britain has a practise that deviates significantly from the
: norm everybody else should conform to British practise. That has as much
: merit as an attempt to make Americans drive in left side of the road.
: But you are of right, strictly speaking. Your original statement was:
: Leaving aside burgher arms, only nobles have arms. This is true, though
: meaningless. Leaving aside clothes worn by adults, only children wear
: clothes.
The original statement is also false. The British College of Arms has
conferred arms on companies and clubs, neither of which meet the criteria
of being of the aristocracy (although their owners/members might). These
arms are grants, not assumed, and therefore not 'burgher' arms in the
sense that you originally used.
Kenric Dana Malmberg
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
The kind of differencing I know of in Denmark is the granting of
various diminutives of Denmark to branches of the royal family.
Slesvig's two blue lions in gold are best known, but there are
many others. Bastards often got reverse colors. There were
many royal bastards named Gyldenl|ve (Goldenlion).
Much in heraldry is a matter of taste. Some may claim that the
strict regulation and mandatory differencing of British armory
is a sign that it is "vibrant", while others might use the same
evidence to show that it is stale and stilted. There is no one
best way.
Klaus O K
Josh Mittleman
: Klaus, I don't know what a "bomke" is, but I am curious. Are you
: referring to those runes or "house marks" (as I once read they were
: called) that look like non Roman letters ? If so, could you fill us in a
: bit? I've always been curious about those things. What were they
: origianlly used for? etc. etc.
I know a little about this subject, mostly because a friend of mine wrote a
fine paper on the subject. Hausmarken appear to have originated among the
merchant class in German port cities, and may have been influenced by the
so-called "runic" armory of Poland. It is not clear exactly how and why
hausmarken arose, and since they are not part of the culture of the
nobility, they are less well documented than standard armory. The best
theory is that they arose first as simple insignia for identifying
ownership of goods (analogous to cattle brands of the American west,
English makers' marks, etc.). Whatever their origin, hausmarken came to be
treated as armory under every reasonable definition. They were transmitted
from father to son, they were differenced, and they were marshalled with
standard armory when merchant families intermarried with nobility.
David James (who I believe reads this newsgroup) found a book which
examined merchant arms in England, and which showed quite conclusively that
a very similar style of armory arose among merchants in English port
cities, perhaps transferred from German merchants. In England, too, these
marks were treated as armory in every practical sense.
The paper I mentioned goes into more detail, discussing individual charges,
methods of cadency, etc., and proposes a system of blazon in English for
these arms. If anyone wants to get hold of it, I believe I can put you in
touch with the publisher of a compilation that includes it.
===========================================================================
Josh Mittleman mit...@panix.com
Louis Epstein
: jc...@ccs.Carleton.CA (Rideau Herald) writes:
: >Still, it might help balance things out if everyone kept their family shield
: >in the drawer of their bedside tables, as well as the other kind of arms.
: Only if we could have swords too.
Swords don't protect people,shields protect people.
Louis Epstein
: OK...I hear what you're saying here...let me ask a question back; the SMOM,
: which is probably the only pan-european nobiliary institution still in existence
: now that there in no longer an Emperor, has always accepted that when it is
: scrutinising "noble proofs" for admission into its ranks, the possession of
: a properly granted coat-of-arms is prima facie evidence that one belongs
: to the "untitled nobility". Would you agree with the SMOM on this or not?
I wrote a while ago about convening the Electors to repudiate the 1806
assertion that the Empire could end and fill the vacancy...I might have
only posted that one to alt.revolution.counter,though.(I think I
cross-posted to alt.talk.royalty).
I thought you were saying this was only UK practice for the SMOM?
: [Putting on my scrivener's hat, now....] In the UK it has been good legal practice
: for some considerable time now to omit all punctuation from legal documents....
: this term encompasses grants of arms which are in the form of letters patent......
: the whole purpose of omitting the commas is to avoid ambiguity....I have no
: comment to make on whether this improves "understandability" or not!!!!!
Seems to me inserting commas can be necessary to avoid ambiguity!!
Judy Gerjuoy
Oh yah - what about the fighting style Two swords (Florentine - a sword
in each hand)?
Judy Gerjuoy
pos...@imap2.asu.edu
: Right at the beginning of this thread I said that I could only speak from an
: English viewpoint......I admit that I am perhaps speaking from a
: doctrinaire viewpoint AND I also agree that there are certain other
: countries, eg Switzerland, which have an ancient and respected tradition
: of heraldry but have no native nobility. It is up to every country to
: regulate its own heraldic affairs. BUT what I am against is a free for all
: assumption of arms.
Ah HA! Here is the common ground (at last). I think that we can all
agree that a "free for all" would serve only to diminish the meaning of
heraldry, as well as jeopardize the ideal of unique grants to each
armiger. The status which heraldry imparts (whether implied or formally
conveyed) is a matter for individual nations to determine.
However, we are still faced with the problem of many countries with no
central heraldic authority (e.g., the USA). Most of these will not, in
all probability, establish a clear heraldic authority. In these cases, I
believe that non-profit organizations, such as the American College of
Heraldry, are the only satisfactory alternative. Of course, grants by
such bodies can impart no "official" status to the arms granted, but can
serve as a registry to ensure uniqueness. In the USA, the only legal
protection of arms is copyright, but the combination of a non-profit
heraldic registry and copyright protection does accomplish much, so long
as the registry is operated by persons who will do their best to preserve
heraldic traditions in a multicultural context.
------------------------
Patrick O'Shea, DMA
P.O...@asu.edu
(602) 730-5889
Joshua Brandon Holden
>
> GEBERAL COMMENT: From the responses in this thread I'm really
> beginning to get the feeling that some of the people on here are not
> interested in another country's way of interpreting heraldic practice if
> it does not accord with what they would like to see in their own country.
>
> I did not make the English/Scottish/Irish heraldic rules...I can only tell
> you what they are. If you're not interested in learning more about
> our heraldic practice then please say so.
Please do not misunderstand, Patrick; I'm sure this is not the case! I am
certainly not uninterested in Britain's heraldic practice.
However, this thread was *specifically* about what we should be telling
*Americans* about using arms *in the US*. So British practice is not a
priori relevant, even if the arms were originally British --- the argument
is about to what degree British tradition should be considered relevant in
this case, not about what British tradition is worth!
---josh
--
Joshua Brandon Holden Brown Math Department hol...@math.brown.edu
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!" ---Cutter John
YAZ/socrates
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein (lep...@j51.com) wrote:
: : Francois Velde (ve...@riffle.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : : And, if Britain were carrying on a tradition
: : : that had disappeared in other countries, those views would carry weigt
: : : indeed.
: : Hmmm...you don't seem prepared to concede this point when it comes to
: : cadency!
: That's true. British views carry weight, but they do not tip the scale
: in all cases. In this instance, other reasons tilt the other way, mainly
: the fact that the tradition in question disappeared fairly early
: on (i.e. before modern times). I am not against differencing per se
: (in my younger days, when I spent spare time identifying 18th c.
: silverware and 16th c. seals, I ardently wished that French nobility
: *had* used more differencing!) I just think *systematic* differencing
: is unnecessary and impractical, especially for untitled families and
: in the present state of inheritance laws (quite different from the 13th
: c.). And I suspect those are among the reasons for its disappearance.
: It doesn't seem to me that the way it is practiced in England nowadays
: is very practical either.
While,with my paramount concern with identifying individuals,I think heraldry
borders on uselessness without systematic differencing.
Lorne Gray
Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet
Distribution:
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Barron's view of the Heralds' Visitations is certainly not that currently held by
: the College of Arms. The Law of Arms is a living entity and can change from
: year to year and generation to generation. As far as the Law of Arms in England
: is concerned it is, I suppose, the heraldic practice currently operated by the
: College. As far as we in England are concerned if the College says that in
: English heraldry "x is y" then we have no option but to accept it.
Not at all. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume
35 pg. 476, : "The substance of the law of arms is to be found in the
customs and usages of the Court of Chivalry" The cite given to back this
up is:
"4 Co Inst 125: Puryman v Cavendish (1397) Close Roll 21 Ric II, p. I, m. 5."
A bit of explaination. A digest like Halsbury's is only as good as its
cites. The above statement is not true because it is in Halsbury's. It
is only true if the sources cited actually stand for that proposition.
Since I have not checked up on them, I cannot give an opinion on that,
but until contradicted, I will take this position. What the members of
the College say has really no bearing on what the ture law of arms is.
The true law of arms is summed up in the last case held in the Court of
Chivalry, the Manchester Palace case. Lord Goddard was quite clear in
saying that the Court should only be convened for really significant
cases, and that it should be put on a statutory basis if it is to be used
with any frequency. In other words, the Law of Arms states that unless
Parliament takes it upon
itself to legislate in the matter, there is NO enforceable law governing
arms, with a possible exception for something really significant, like
the abuse of the arms of Public Intitutions. (which is what that case was
about)
In the FAQ it says that refoms in English law since the 50's makes it
almost impossible to recall the Court of Chivalry now. Could whoever put
that in fill me in on what those reforms were, and why they would prevent
the recall of the Court of Chivalry?
Another entry in Halsbury's, right below the one quoted above, gives
a good example of a statement that isn't backed up. It says:
"Arms may only be borne by virtue of ancestral right or of a grant made
under lawful authority."
Sounds pretty conclusive doesn't it? But then you check the cite, and it
turn out to be Squibb's book, "The High Court of Chivalry" pages 184 and 185.
Now it is true that "Scholarly works" can be cited as legal authorities,
but they are very very weak ones, and easily suject to attack.
In the case here, Squibb's argument is based on a statement of the law
included in the pleadings of the prosecution. Even Squibb admits that
you can't put "implicite reliance" on this. I would go further. A
statement of the law is irrelevant unless actually borne out in the
decision. I have not yet been shown a case where someone who assumed new
arms was convicted of any offence in the Court of Chivalry. I HAVE seen
evidence that people with assumed arms have been able to enforce legal
rights to them in that Court, and I have seen evidence that during the
visitations, assumed arms were legitimated. To me this shows
conclusively that assumed arms are not just not illegal, but totally
legitimate in England.
: I'd be interested to see what other people have to say on the Barron v Squibb
: argument.
:
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: | Patrick Cracroft-Brennan EMail in...@londwill.demon.co.uk |
: | The London Will Company Specialist Will Writers Tel:0181 563 2500 |
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Velde
>[...] ...the logical interpretation
>should be: if all armigers are noble.....then by being granted arms Danish knights
>grand cross are made noble (to interpret your way would, I agree, be illogical).
Patrick, a statement of the form "A implies B" can never tell us whether A is true.
At best, if B is not true, it proves that A is not true. So you will get nowhere
with your Danish example in your attempt to prove that all armigers are noble.
>Right at the beginning of this thread I said that all I could do was to set out
>what would be the British response to someone assuming arms....that is
>all I have done.
Patrick, you've done a bit more than that. You've also expressed moral judgments
on self-assumption in countries with no heraldic authorities. You have called it
an usurpation of British honors, you have said it was in extremely bad taste (and
I presume that applies to the Swiss as well). You have said that it was "wrong".
You've repeatedly stated that you would only accept self-assumed arms only if
inferior in status to granted arms, even debruised in some way. When saying that,
you *had* to be speaking of another country than Britain, since self-assumed arms
are not allowed any more in Britain. So you *are* expressing opinions about how
things *should* be done in other countries. There's nothing wrong with that, but
don't deny it, because it explains in part the reactions by some people.
Let me ask you: the most ancient families of Britain presumably have no grants of
arm, just as the proudest and most noble French families all assumed arms at some
point. Would you also say that these self-assumed arms are inferior in status to
a coat of arms granted 3 months ago?
>> Another question for you: in another post, you said that arms should be
>> reserved for emminent men, yet you have also spoken in favor of heritable
>> arms. Which do you want? You can't have it both ways.
>>
>descend according to the law of arms.
Klaus' point is that there is nothing that can ensure that the descent of
eminent men will be eminent, or that the status achieved by a granteee will
be maintained by his descendants. A grant of arms may thus be a mark of
personal distinction for the grantee, but it says nothing about the eminence
of his posterity, and it is hard to interpret it as a mark of eminence, given
the way you have defined eminence.
>GEBERAL COMMENT: From the responses in this thread I'm really
>beginning to get the feeling that some of the people on here are not
>interested in another country's way of interpreting heraldic practice if
>it does not accord with what they would like to see in their own country.
practices. The thing is, for a number of reasons, British practices are
pretty well-known on this newsgroup, or if they aren't there are plenty
of knowledgeable people (including you, of course) who can provide information.
I've read this newsgroup since its start, it was through it and because of it
that I have learned about British heraldry (about which I knew zip 3 years
ago). Many, if not most, of the heraldic discussions here gravitate around
English practices. I think your statement is quite inaccurate, or rather
it could easily be turned back on you: you see Continental heraldry through
the prism of British heraldry, just as a number of British writers seem to,
if necessary inventing pleasant fictions like burgher arms to explain away
any stubborn contradictory evidence. I urge you to look at the evidence I
have cited if you can, and re-evaluate that notion *as it applies to the
continent* (I'm not saying anything about how Britain does or should do
things).
I don't believe I have ever used the word "wrong" when discussing British
practices, but *you* have used that word about self-assumption in other
countries. I strenuously tried to point out that, IMO, the equation of
armigers with members of the gentry or gentility is an interpretation
peculiar to Britain. Same goes for the belief in the absolute need for
an heraldic authority and for a prohibition against self-assumption.
It does not make it wrong, it makes it unusual and atypical.
My initial comment, a long time ago, was that I did not really think that
this peculiar interpretation, as opposed to the more common one on the Continent,
should be the one prevaling in the US, should one prevail. My comment was not
based on the notion that the British interpretation was the "wrong" one.
Rather, it stemmed from the fact that not that many Americans are of British
descent, and that the chances for establishing a heraldic authority with any
kind of monopoly power like the English College of Arms are nil. Given that
incontrovertible fact, it makes little sense to me to tell people in the US
that self-assumption is wrong, since it leaves them with no recourse (if they
are not of British descent). You can say: "tough luck", but I see no reason
why US heraldry should be subordinated to UK heraldry, and why people by the
name of, say, Velde, whose ancestors do not come from "the fairest isle"
(but Ostfriesland, in our case) should be told: "tough luck, you can't use
a coat of arms." That *would* be imposing British views on US heraldry
(but it seems to me that you have not expressed such a strong opinion in
recent postings, so I am not accusing you of such).
Francois Velde
>There is a story that when James VI of Scotland inherited the English
>throne, his old nurse, who was Englush, came to him and asked if he
>would make her son a gentleman. He is said to have replied: "Madam, I
>can make your son the greatest Peer in my Realm...I can bestow on him
>wealth and honours beyond measure.....but I can never make him a
>gentleman."
>
>HEALTH WARNING: THIS IS THE ENGLISH VIEW AND I AM NOT
>SPEAKING FOR ANY OTHER COUNTRY PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE,
>REAL OR IMAGINED!!!!!!
Actually, the French had exactly the same proverb: the King can make
a nobleman, he can't make a gentleman. But that's because the definition
of a gentleman was someone who was born noble.
Lorne Gray
: GEBERAL COMMENT: From the responses in this thread I'm really
: beginning to get the feeling that some of the people on here are not
: interested in another country's way of interpreting heraldic practice if
: it does not accord with what they would like to see in their own country.
: I did not make the English/Scottish/Irish heraldic rules...I can only tell
: you what they are. If you're not interested in learning more about
: our heraldic practice then please say so.
I for one, love nothing more than discussing the rules and laws
pertaining to English/Scottish/Irish heraldry with you, but I do not
agree with your interpretation of what they are.(at least in the case of
England)
Jim Terzian
(Lorne Gray) writes:
> I have read one interesting arguement attacking the validity of the
>Lord Lyon's authority to regulate arms, in a book called "Vital
>Heraldry", but unfortunately, I doubt it would wash in court.
Given that it would be Lord Lyon's court, odds are you're right. :)
I'd love to see a copy of 'Vital heraldry', though. might make a
good read (OK, I never said I wasn't a tad touched).
>I would not
>automatically assume that an American with assumed arms would get into
>trouble for using them in Scotland. (although I wouldn't automatically
>assume they wouldn't either.)
I think you should. Lord Lyon enforces his jurisdiction on all
residing in Scotland, including other subjects of the Crown.
Matriculation is a must if you are going to reside and use arms there.
I think owning real property there also gets him to enforce his
jurisdiction too.
Now, the arms you matriculate will be identical or damn close to
you arms borne elsewhere if the authority or method that granted your
arms is one Lord Lyon chooses to recognise, but no Lord Lyon wants to
see his authority lost for lack of use (hence the case every 2-3
years).
>
(snip)
>
>For example, if I got a grant from the Canadian Heraldic Authority
then
>moved to Scotland, would I have to Matriculate my arms with the Lord
>Lyon? My sense is no. So why can't an AMerican assume arms and move
>to Scotland? Same difference to my mind.
Same difference, and still his authority. It comes from statute,
and someone in Britain can quote it to us. Bottom line: the use of
arms in Scotland is his to govern.
>
>What is LEXIS and how can I get my hands on those cases?
>
LEXIS is an american legal computer network and database you can
purchase access to, not unlike other for-fee elements of the 'net. It
allows for a search of all american legislation and case law. It's
been around over a decade. Few american law offices can afford to be
without it. Since you are in Vancouver, you might find a law office or
law library connected (or it may also have streachted to Canada by
now).
- Jim Terzian
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <625950...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 22.53.57
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <D9FDr...@ns1.nodak.edu> malm...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Kenric D Malmberg)
writes:
> The original statement is also false. The British College of Arms has
> conferred arms on companies and clubs, neither of which meet the criteria
> of being of the aristocracy (although their owners/members might). These
> arms are grants, not assumed, and therefore not 'burgher' arms in the
> sense that you originally used.
>
I was totally leaving to one side the subject of "corporate and civic" heraldry.
Quite obviously the concept of nobility cannot apply to corporate bodies.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <163775...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 22.50.01
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qel1h$6...@odin.diku.dk> kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Your argument:
>
> In Germany, a grant of nobility was accompanied by a grant of arms. Thus
> all armigers are nobles.
>
> My argument:
>
> In Denmark becoming a knight grand cross is accompanied by a grant of arms.
> Thus all armiger are knights grand cross.
That's a totally false interpretation of what I'm saying.....the logical interpretation
should be: if all armigers are noble.....then by being granted arms Danish knights
grand cross are made noble (to interpret your way would, I agree, be illogical).
> >The fact that there is no heraldic authority
> >in the USA is regrettable but that does not mean I have to then condone them
> >assuming arms, an action which from a British viewpoint is against our armorial
> >practice.
>
> What has British practise got to do with the USA?
Right at the beginning of this thread I said that all I could do was to set out
what would be the British response to someone assuming arms....that is
all I have done. It seems to me that because our approach to self-
assumptions is less lenient than other countries that somehow we are wrong.
>
> But recognised just about everywhere else. You are claiming that in this
> area, where Britain has a practise that deviates significantly from the norm,
> everybody else should conform to British practise. That has as much merit
> as an attempt to make Americans drive in left side of the road.
At no point have I said that you should conform to British practice.
> But you are of right, strictly speaking. Your original statement was:
> Leaving aside burgher arms, only nobles have arms. This is true, though
> meaningless. Leaving aside clothes worn by adults, only children wear
> clothes.
>
> Another question for you: in another post, you said that arms should be
> reserved for emminent men, yet you have also spoken in favor of heritable
> arms. Which do you want? You can't have it both ways.
>
This is ridiculous.....obviously once the arms have been granted they will
descend according to the law of arms.
GEBERAL COMMENT: From the responses in this thread I'm really
beginning to get the feeling that some of the people on here are not
interested in another country's way of interpreting heraldic practice if
it does not accord with what they would like to see in their own country.
I did not make the English/Scottish/Irish heraldic rules...I can only tell
you what they are. If you're not interested in learning more about
our heraldic practice then please say so.
--
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> >>("Right to bear arms" makes one think of firearms,should we rename the
> >>thread?)
>
> >Louis, it was a deliberate allusion on my part when I renamed the
> >thread. I don't expect all non-Americans to get the allusion but I
> >the amendment meant that all Americans were entitled to be
> >armigerous?! 'twould solve half of the USA's problems at one stroke.
>
> >(And please, that is meant to be a slightly-humorous aside, not an
> >attempt to start a firearms thread/flame-war in rec.heraldry.)
> >--
> >simon
> >Simon....@Smallworld.co.uk (work)
>
> Yes, Simon, I thought this was very neat. But you ignore the many
> implications inherent in this intrepretation. If all American posters adopt
> this out-of-context quote in their signatures ("...the Right to Bear Arms
> shall not be infringed upon"), form the NHA (National Heraldry Association)
> which would have this motto carved in stone on its office facade, write to
> their congressmen, etc. soon the US would be full of corner stores selling
> Arms - perhaps "Saturday night specials" purchased by young bloods heading
> downtown for a little heraldic mayhem, no doubt they would be sold by mail
> order as well, many of them teflon coated, and inevitably some would be
> smuggled across the border under the seats of rusty 1980 Ford Fairlaines, to
> be distributed around poor neighbourhoods in Windsor. Patrick C-B would go
> out of his mind!
No comment!!!!! <grin>
> Still, it might help balance things out if everyone kept their family shield
> in the drawer of their bedside tables, as well as the other kind of arms.
A thought.....since the Oklahoma massacre there has been much talk in the
UK press on the fact that Amercians carry guns because your Constitution
gives you the "right to bear arms".....You don't htink that this has been
misinterpreted from the start and that what was really meant was the right
to bear a coat-of-arms?????
<<<<<Joking, really!!!!>>>>>>>
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
writes:
> The only possible exception is
> Scotland, and even there I'd like to give the law a good look first. I
> Lyon's authority to regulate arms, in a book called "Vital Heraldry", but
> unfortunately, I doubt it would wash in court.
I don't really think there is much arfument as to what the Scottish view
is in view of the wording on their grants.
>
> For example, if I got a grant from the Canadian Heraldic Authority then
> moved to Scotland, would I have to Matriculate my arms with the Lord
> Lyon? My sense is no. So why can't an AMerican assume arms and move to
> Scotland? Same difference to my mind.
The answer to your question is "yes".....a few years back there was a reason
for me to use and display my arms in Scotland....even though they had been
granted by the Chief Herald of Ireland, Lord Lyon was quite adamant that I
would have to matriculate them if I wanted to sue them in Scotland....so I did!
>
> : I have seen accounts in LEXIS of cases involving (mis)use of heraldry in
> : Scotland - my gut feeling is that it happens every couple of years ago - I
> : would have to find that set of papers and go through it, but I do
> : remember when I ran the printout about 18 months ago there was at least
> : one case - and I think two, in the 90's. Since that was mid 93, that
> : seems to bear out my feeling.
There was a widely reported case in the Court of the Lord Lyon only last year
when a removal company was made to remove some bogys heraldry from the
sides of their vans.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Simon Kershaw (s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <687383...@londwill.demon.co.uk>,
> : Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <in...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : Again, I recognise the practicalities of the situation, that the College
> : needs must maintain its records, sadly without state support**. But one
> : must question whether it is strictly necessary for it to support three
> : kings, six heralds and four pursuivants. Scotland seems to manage
> : perfectly well with a *much* smaller number. Is it the case that the fees
> : are so high because they are divided so many ways?
>
> : ** Now there's an idea for National Lottery money, and it wouldn't cost
> : *me* a penny
>
> Are there any more heralds PER CAPITA,though?Scotland is relatively empty.
Interesting point Louis....anyone know the population of England?
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <85745...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 23.47.43
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qg1o0$9...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Lorne Gray)
writes:
> : >This is an example of "burgher" heraldry which is not recognised in
> : >Britain.
>
> I must disagree here. I refer you to the writings by Oswald Barron and
> others in "The Ancestor". An analysis of old correspondence showed
> without a doubt that the Heralds would confirm a self assumed coat of
> arms if continuous user was shown for at least 60 years. This was the
> practise during the Visitations, when the College had at least some
> authority. After it had its wings clipped by the cancellation of the
> Visitations, one Garter King of Arms (Anstis I think) unilaterally decided
> that user would no longer be accepted. THIS was the real violation of
> the English law of arms, and the College has been pushing this line ever
> since.
It all depends whether you accept the writings of Oswald Barron AND
believe that the Visitations were to recognise the then current usage rather
than to stop people using assumed arms.
One can argue the point both ways.....and having just been through a long
thread with Francois on a cognate subject, I really don't have the heart to
start doing it all over again!!!
> The College takes the absurd position that people who didn't register
> thier assumed arms during the visitation somehow "missed the boat". Tell
> me, how can a reduction in the College's authority give it the right to
> excercise more control over arms? The persons summoned to the visitations
> did not see them as some magnamimous gesture towards ligitimizing their
> questionable right to arms. They saw them as a money making ploy by the
> Crown based on trying to call into question a right that they had enjoyed
> for centuries. [a lot of similarities here to what Franceois says was
> happening in France] They didn't want to exclude people from having
> arms. They wanted to squeeze some cash out of them.
To call the College's position "absurd" does not really help the argument...as
far as we in the UK are concerned what is important is not what the heralds
did or did not do back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but what
they do now. The heralds administer and interpret the Law of Arms in England
on behalf of the Crown.....this law is a living law and what was accepted back
in the 1500's may not be so now and vice versa. The College's position IS
the College's position and we (ie those in England) can either like it or lump
it!!!
> Therefore, after the visitations were stopped ,no one who had self assumed
> arms volunteered to come to the College, and pay money for what they felt
> was theirs by right. In
> order to drum up business, the College was therefore forced to invent
> this false doctrine that self assumed arms were somehow not legitimate in
> England. It just is NOT true. The real difference between England and
> the rest of the world is that the College survived, which enabled its
> members to spread thier doctrine and convince people that their position
> was correct.
In England the College under the Earl Marshl has complete autonomy in
matters heraldic and can invent whatever doctrines it thinks fit. If these differ
from views held in other parts of the world then that's just part of heraldry's
rich tapestry...but to call the College's doctrines "false" is not helping
matters!!!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Simon Kershaw <s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk> says:
> : Yes, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to England and
> : Wales, not Scotland. An English grant does not, so far as I am aware,
> : confer or recognise such a concept of nobility. Armigerous Englishman
> : used to refer to themselves as e.g., "Nicholas Wadham, Armiger" and as
> : a "gentleman of coat-armour".
>
> Etymology to the rescue: The root of _noble_ is _gno_ (the `g' is
> lost in the positive but retained in the negative i(n)gnoble), related
> to _know_: the noble are those who are or can be known, and how
> better to be known than by a coat of arms?
>
> The meaning of _noble_ has been narrowed, much like _knight_ (rider)
> and _baron_ (freeman); but I think the Scottish usage mentioned above
> is a remnant of the older meaning.
In no way am I an etymologist, but the word "noblesse" is the word used
in current Scotish grants and is defined, if I remeber correctly with my copy
of "Scots Heraldry" nowhere to hand, as the whole assemblage of Scottish
nobility, ie the peers of the realm, the feudal lords and the armigerous
clansmen with the King at the top.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <639171...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, Jun 01, 1995 00.07.28
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qh7t5$e...@odin.diku.dk> kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>
> Then I don't understand what you mean by eminent.
>
The petitioner for a grant has to be suitably eminent that he would be taken
for a "gentleman" where it not for the fact that he did not have a coat-of-arms.
This is what is meant by saying that someone is at the "port (ie door) of
gentility".
He is granted his arms and from then onwards he and his descendants do
not need to PROVE that they are "gentlemen"...their arms say it for them.
It is important to remember that the grant does not make the recipient a
gentleman....they are a recognition by the Crown that he is one.
There is a story that when James VI of Scotland inherited the English
throne, his old nurse, who was Englush, came to him and asked if he
would make her son a gentleman. He is said to have replied: "Madam, I
can make your son the greatest Peer in my Realm...I can bestow on him
wealth and honours beyond measure.....but I can never make him a
gentleman."
HEALTH WARNING: THIS IS THE ENGLISH VIEW AND I AM NOT
SPEAKING FOR ANY OTHER COUNTRY PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE,
REAL OR IMAGINED!!!!!!
Francois R. Velde
: : the whole purpose of omitting the commas is to avoid ambiguity....I have no
: : comment to make on whether this improves "understandability" or not!!!!!
: Seems to me inserting commas can be necessary to avoid ambiguity!!
That may precisely be the point of avoiding commas.
Here's the argument: if it is possible to write in such a way that
the addition or displacement of a comma could alter the text, then
it is desirable to require writers never to use a comma. In that
case, they will be obliged to write in such a way that commas could
not alter the meaning of the text.
Possible example: per pale sable and or a bend gules. Without
punctuation, this could be read "per pale: Sable, and: Or, a bend Gules"
or "per pale Sable and or, a bend gules". If punctuation is not
tolerated, the blazoner would have to add "overall" in the second
case, for example.
Of course, a more sensible rule is to require writers to write as
if they could not use commas, and then allow them to use commas
once the text is composed.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
pos...@imap2.asu.edu
: Swords don't protect people,shields protect people.
Or should that be "Swords don't kill people; people kill people."?
I support the right of people to own swords for sporting and target
slashing purposes. In fact, I believe that people should be allowed to
carry concealed swords, after applying for a permit and taking a minimum
20-hour course in proper use and sword safety.
If more law-abiding citizens carried swords on a daily basis, it would
serve as a considerable deterrent to violent crime.
(On the other hand, there has been little trouble with drive-by stabbings).
Maybe we can get the NRA behind us on this one. . .
<tongue now removed from cheek>
Anton Sherwood
: > Swords don't protect people,shields protect people.
Judy Gerjuoy <jae...@access2.digex.net> says:
: Oh yah - what about the fighting style Two swords (Florentine -
: a sword in each hand)?
A sword is just a long narrow shield.
--
disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Stranger things have happened.
Josh Mittleman
: : > Swords don't protect people,shields protect people.
: Judy Gerjuoy <jae...@access2.digex.net> says:
: : Oh yah - what about the fighting style Two swords (Florentine -
: : a sword in each hand)?
This really has no place on rec.heraldry. But in the interest of
historical accuracy, I would note that there is _no_ evidence that anyone
ever fought with two swords in real combat. This should be taken as strong
evidence that it is an ineffective style.
===========================================================================
Josh Mittleman mit...@panix.com
Chills
I agree with Patrick on this subject.
Having arms myself - to me its vulgar to know that someone just off the
street with my surname can obtain for a nominal fee my arms.
That's why I've always stated - if its published & its a copyrighted work
checkout the front of the book for notices on armorial usages from the book.
Some of the newer armorials out there DO note that just because you share the
same surname doesn't necessarily mean those are your arms. Or even: Arms
depicted within are owned by individuals any information should be discussed
with the owners of the arms or with the publisher.
Chills
Zach Kessin
>Or should that be "Swords don't kill people; people kill people."?
>I support the right of people to own swords for sporting and target
>slashing purposes. In fact, I believe that people should be allowed to
>carry concealed swords, after applying for a permit and taking a minimum
>20-hour course in proper use and sword safety.
How do you conceal a sword. Its not like 36" of steal is easy to hide.
--Zachary Kessin zke...@tiac.net
x^n+y^n=z^n has no integer Solutions other than 0 for n>2
I have a wonderful proof of this, but it won't fit in a .sig file.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <845789...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Friday, Jun 02, 1995 23.46.14
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qlbli$a...@jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu> Francois Velde <ve...@jhu.edu> writes:
> Let me ask you: the most ancient families of Britain presumably have no grants of
> arm, just as the proudest and most noble French families all assumed arms at some
> point. Would you also say that these self-assumed arms are inferior in status to
> a coat of arms granted 3 months ago?
Of course I'm not saying that....as I've just explained in detail in a response to Lorna, anciently all arms
were assumed in this country but in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Crown decided to control a
perceived abuse of this by insisting that in the future entitlement to arms would be by male, legitinate
descent from someone who's arms had been either granted or confirmed by the kings of arms.
What I have tried to say is throughout this thread is that the English view is that although of old arms
could be assumed (why even we Cracrofts assumed our arms about 1200'ish!), this right no longer
applies and to become a new armiger you must obtain a grant from the kings of arms. It is important to
appreciate that the right of the ancient families (Howard, Grey, Percy, Luttrell, Dymoke, etc. etc) to bear
their arms is not from ancient usage, venerable though this is, but through the fact that in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries they recorded their arms and pedigrees with the heralds at their visitations
and these arms were confirmed to them.
These confirmations can be quite interesting....I recently saw a copy of the confirmation of arms, crest
and supporters, dated 28 May 1580, by Robert Cooke, Clarenceaux, to Philip Howard, Earl of
Arundel.....the arms etc were beautifully painted with 12 quarterings.....unfortuantely the painter omitted
to include a quartering for Howard!!!!
> Klaus' point is that there is nothing that can ensure that the descent of
> eminent men will be eminent, or that the status achieved by a granteee will
> be maintained by his descendants. A grant of arms may thus be a mark of
> personal distinction for the grantee, but it says nothing about the eminence
> of his posterity, and it is hard to interpret it as a mark of eminence, given
> the way you have defined eminence.
Klaus certainly didn't make it plain that this is what he meant. Once the arms have been granted they
are in law inalienable and descend according to the law and usages of arms. The view is that all direct
male descendants are gentleman (in England and Wales) or noble (in Scotland). The future status of the
descendants is immaterial. I appreciate that in America the notion is that wealth signifies status, but this
is not the case in England and I know of several destitute people who's blood is still deemed to be
gentle because a remote ancestor of theirs had arms granted to him.
> Patrick, you have shown yourself particularly misinformed on Continental
> practices. The thing is, for a number of reasons, British practices are
> pretty well-known on this newsgroup, or if they aren't there are plenty
> of knowledgeable people (including you, of course) who can provide information.
> I've read this newsgroup since its start, it was through it and because of it
> that I have learned about British heraldry (about which I knew zip 3 years
> ago). Many, if not most, of the heraldic discussions here gravitate around
> English practices. I think your statement is quite inaccurate, or rather
> it could easily be turned back on you: you see Continental heraldry through
> the prism of British heraldry, just as a number of British writers seem to,
> if necessary inventing pleasant fictions like burgher arms to explain away
> any stubborn contradictory evidence.
I feel you are being unfair here...(1) many of the English books on heraldry talk about heraldic practices
in other parts of the world.....as far as one is aware the writers, some of them eminent members of the
College of Arms, are being truthful.....the views I have propounded are in the large culled from their
works....you are saying that they are incorrect on some aspects of Continental heraldry.....I am certainly
no expert in Continental heraldry but how can I judge who is correct when you put forward arguments that
to the Ebglish ear are most novel? (2) The concept of burgher heraldry is no fiction and indeed a
correspondant of mine pointed out only yesterday that she had read a German writer's comments on the
subject of burgher heraldry which were in agreement with the comments I have made on here. (3) For
various reasons I come into contact with many members of the European nobility, many of whom appear
to be experts on the heraldry of their own countries.....unless I have totally misunderstood what they have
been telling me for the last 20 years, their views on heraldry and nobility on the Continent accord with the
views I have put forward here, nor with the views which I think yourself, Klause and Lorna are expressing.
Again, I am in a quandary as to who is correct? Is it really important?
> I don't believe I have ever used the word "wrong" when discussing British
> practices, but *you* have used that word about self-assumption in other
> countries. I strenuously tried to point out that, IMO, the equation of
> armigers with members of the gentry or gentility is an interpretation
> peculiar to Britain. Same goes for the belief in the absolute need for
> an heraldic authority and for a prohibition against self-assumption.
> It does not make it wrong, it makes it unusual and atypical.
With the greatest respect, I must disagree with you here. The whole origin of arms was with the knightly
caste. It can be argued that the popularization of heraldry as a means of display was due to the
tournament rather than the field of war. The torunament is upposed to have been invented in the
mid-eleventh century in France by Godfrey de Preuilly, and it developed as a popular form of regular
training in the handling of weapons and horses. It rapidly became highly organised and hedged around
with rules and elaborate pageantry. In the later Middle Ages thebearing of arms came to be accepted
as an essential prerequsiite of participation in a tournament. In1389, for example, when John de
Kungeston was challenged to a jous by a French knight, in order to enable him to accept the challenge
King Richard II "received him into the estate of Gentleman and have made him Esquire, and will that he
be known by Arms, and bear them henceforth". The growing importance of military pageantry and its
association with the tournament would have excluded those of insufficient social standing who were
inable to meet the expense, and this would have helped to restrict the use of arms to the knightly class.
Thus, arms came to be seen as a mark of noble status, and were granted by the Holy Roman Emperor
and the European kings as a corallary to ennoblement.
> My initial comment, a long time ago, was that I did not really think that
> this peculiar interpretation, as opposed to the more common one on the Continent,
> should be the one prevaling in the US, should one prevail. My comment was not
> based on the notion that the British interpretation was the "wrong" one.
> Rather, it stemmed from the fact that not that many Americans are of British
> descent, and that the chances for establishing a heraldic authority with any
> kind of monopoly power like the English College of Arms are nil. Given that
> incontrovertible fact, it makes little sense to me to tell people in the US
> that self-assumption is wrong, since it leaves them with no recourse (if they
> are not of British descent). You can say: "tough luck", but I see no reason
> why US heraldry should be subordinated to UK heraldry, and why people by the
> name of, say, Velde, whose ancestors do not come from "the fairest isle"
> (but Ostfriesland, in our case) should be told: "tough luck, you can't use
> a coat of arms." That *would* be imposing British views on US heraldry
> (but it seems to me that you have not expressed such a strong opinion in
> recent postings, so I am not accusing you of such).
Perhaps even my views can change!! Of course what is interesting is that for the period
beginning in 1586 with the probable grant to the City and Corporation of Ralegh in Virginia and
ending on 31 March 1775 with the grant to Andrew Sparhawk, there was regulated heraldry in what
became the United States of America. It began early, developed slowly, and just as it was beginning to
flourish was cut off by the Revolution. In the Library of the College of Arms there are many
pre-Revolution grants, to both people and corporations. After 1775 there are occaional references to
America in grants to those who left after the Revolution. The limitations of some of the grants were
extended to include members of the grantees' families still resident in America.
The trade was not all one-way. In 1866 an American, John von Sonnentag Haviland, later de Haviland,
was appointed Rouge Croix and he became York Herald in 1872. He was born in 1826, probably in
Philadelphia where his father, an architect who specialized in designing prisons, practiced.
As said above, American heraldry regulated from England began in 1586 with the grant to the City of
Ralegh, then in theColony of Virginia, and almost four hundred years later the Town of Manteo, North
Carolina, which ocupies the site of the proposed city of Ralegh, petitioned the Kings of Arms fro a
devisal which they received in 1983. The arms devised were Argent on a Cross Gules six Lozenges
conjoined palewise of the field in dezter chief a Roebuck statant also Gules. This varied the 1586 grant
by the addition of lozenges on the cross , an allusion to Sir Walter Raleigh, and the alteration of the
tincture of the roebuck from proper or its natural colour to Gules. Although in the United States there is
only a comparatively small body of ne authorized heraldry from England, the extensive use there of, for
instance, personal arms since the seventeenth century is indicative of the exisitence of heraldry in all
states derived from Europe. Even though the devisal system is of slight financial benefit to the College
of Arms it is perhaps time that the United States recognized the need for at least properly regulated
municipal or corporate heraldry, and established its own heraldic authority.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <404774...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Friday, Jun 02, 1995 22.18.02
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qlake$6...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Lorne Gray)
writes:
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Barron's view of the Heralds' Visitations is certainly not that currently held by
> : the College of Arms. The Law of Arms is a living entity and can change from
> : year to year and generation to generation. As far as the Law of Arms in England
> : is concerned it is, I suppose, the heraldic practice currently operated by the
> : College. As far as we in England are concerned if the College says that in
> : English heraldry "x is y" then we have no option but to accept it.
>
> Not at all. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume
> 35 pg. 476, : "The substance of the law of arms is to be found in the
> customs and usages of the Court of Chivalry" The cite given to back this
> up is:
Quite....but I think we're missing the point here.....I'd like to quote verbatim the article on the Court of
Chivalry written by John Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, for "The New Dictionary of
Heraldry":
<Quote>
No one denies that in the formative years of heraldry, namely the end of the twelth and the beginning of
the thirttenth centuries, coats of arms were assumed, probably with the help advice of the heralds, by the
knightly and noble class. That such a system, if such it can be called, left much to be desired, is
evidenced by the establishment of the Court of the Cosntable and Marshal, sometimes called the Court
of Chivalry (and more recently also the Court of the Earl Marshal), in the first half of the fourteenth
century.
The judges in the court were the Constable and Marshal of England, and the court had jurisdiction in
causes armorial. After the execution in 1521 of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and Lord High
Constable, the office of Constable became vacant and no new creations were made, save only for the
day of a coronation. From that date to the present day the Marshall, now called the Earl Marshal, sits
alone, although usually appointing a Surrogate or Assessor to act for him.
[Brooke-Little goes on to explain inter alia the law that the court administers and a little of the history of
the Court.....he ends, as is to be expected, by discussing the 1954 "Manchester" case....]
In the sentence porrected by the plaintiffs (ie the judgement they sought) they prayed inter alia that the
defendants should not display representations of their arms "without leave and licence" of the plaintiffs.
The Surrogate, both Counsel consenting, deleted that particular phrase as it suggested that an armiger
might have the right to authorize and permit another to use his arms. The Surrogate explained that if this
phrase were included it would infringe the rights of the officers of arms, who alone can make grants, and
might deprive them of revenue.
[cut]
In the Commonwealth, although the Earl Marshal enjoys an Imperial jurisdiction, no cause of arms in a
Commonwealth country has been brought before the Court of Chivalry, and it is only fair to predict that it
never will. It is up to the individual Commonwealth countries to institute legal protection for arms by
statute, if so desired.
<End quote>
The important points that Brooke-Little is making are:
1. The Court of Chivalry is the Court of the Earl Marshal....this is obviously significant as (a) the Earl
Marshal has responsibility for the officers of arms and they are his advisers on all matters heraldic and
(b) the court (ie courtroom) is physically part of the College of Arms (it is located in the front of the central
section between the two wings)...it is impossible, therefore, that the Court of Chivalry would give a
decision contrary to the advice of the officers of arms.
2. The Court of Chivalry is a court of redress, ie it is there to protect the lawful armiger, not to administer
the Law of Arms.
> A bit of explaination. A digest like Halsbury's is only as good as its
> cites. The above statement is not true because it is in Halsbury's. It
> is only true if the sources cited actually stand for that proposition.
> Since I have not checked up on them, I cannot give an opinion on that,
> but until contradicted, I will take this position. What the members of
> the College say has really no bearing on what the ture law of arms is.
> The true law of arms is summed up in the last case held in the Court of
> Chivalry, the Manchester Palace case. Lord Goddard was quite clear in
> saying that the Court should only be convened for really significant
> cases, and that it should be put on a statutory basis if it is to be used
> with any frequency. In other words, the Law of Arms states that unless
> Parliament takes it upon itself to legislate in the matter, there is NO
> enforceable law governing arms, with a possible exception for something
> really significant, like the abuse of the arms of Public Intitutions. (which is
> what that case was about)
I do not agree with this comment as it shows a complete misunderstanding of the Law of Arms in
England and Wales. If I may quote Norry and Ulster again:
<Quote>
The basis of the Law of Arms [in England and Wales] is that no-one may bear and use arms wihout
lawful authority, and that arms are in the nature of an incorporeal hereditament and are inalienable,
being inherited in accordance with the laws and usages of arms. Many of these basic laws are of great
antiquity, but they are constantly being augmented either by rulings of the kings of arms or by warrants
from the Earl Marshal. Thus, the ecclesiastical hats that may be used as insignia by the Romans
Catholic and Anglican clergy were recently established by Earl Marshal's warrant. On the other hand,
the use by a bishop of a mitre in place of a crest is an ancient and traditional use. The kings of arms
recently ordered what mark of difference should be used on the arms of legitimated bastards granted
their paternal arms under the terms of a royal licence. The difference between these two types of ruling
is that an Earl Marshal's warrant can only be upset by a further warrant, whereas the kings of arms are at
liberty to alter their rulings, or those of their predecessors, as and when they please: while having a
healthy respect for precedents they are not bound by them.
These laws, rules, conventions - call them what you will - are principally for the guidance of officers of
arms. If they were ignored or flouted a case could be brought before the Court of Chivalry, but the result
of such a case could not safely be anticipated, as the Court has never been called upon to deal with a
minor breach of heraldic law, as from time to time promulgated by the Earl Marshal or the kings of arms.
Thus there is the Law of Arms as deduced from judgements in cases that have come before the Court of
Chivalry, and the laws of arms as detailed above, whose validity has not so far been challenged before
the Court and probably never will, as the authority of the Earl Marshal and the kings of arms in
matters heraldic is everywhere accepted.
<end quote>
> In the case here, Squibb's argument is based on a statement of the law
> included in the pleadings of the prosecution. Even Squibb admits that
> you can't put "implicite reliance" on this. I would go further. A
> statement of the law is irrelevant unless actually borne out in the
> decision. I have not yet been shown a case where someone who assumed new
> arms was convicted of any offence in the Court of Chivalry. I HAVE seen
> evidence that people with assumed arms have been able to enforce legal
> rights to them in that Court, and I have seen evidence that during the
> visitations, assumed arms were legitimated. To me this shows
> conclusively that assumed arms are not just not illegal, but totally
> legitimate in England.
Again, I think you've missed the point. No-one is denying that assumed arms were ONCE accepted in
England and Wales.....but the fact is that they are now NO LONGER lawful.
Let us look at the Heralds' Visitations, for example:
In 1417 the Crown sought to forbid the bearing of arms without its authority and the heralds were given
the task of regulating the use of armorial bearings. Nevertheless, "the bearing of coat armor" was so
widely abused that it became necessary to ascertain precisely who was entitled to use arms and the
English kings of arms were required to survey and record the devices and pedigrees of those claiming
armigerous status and to correct any irregularities . Occasional tours of inquiry were held but it was not
until the sixteenth century that the heralds' visitaions were undertaken in a regular and systematic way.
In 1530, Clarenceaux King of Arms was authorized to travel throughout his provicne (south of the River
Trent) and to enter all dwellings and churches to survey and record whatever arms he might find and "to
put down or otherwise deface at his discretion....in plate, jewels, parchment, windows, gravetones and
monuments or elsewhere wheresoever they may be set or placed" those arms he found to be assumed
unlawfully. He was also to announce by proclamation a;; those who had usurped arms or titles such as
knight, esquire or gentleman.
In practice, it was the heralds and county sheriffs and their officers who conducted the visitations once
the Royal Commission had been presented to the High Sheriff by the King of Arms. The High Sheriff
would then obtain from the bailiff of each hundred within his county a list of all persons using titles or
arms who would then be summoned to appear before the herald or his deputy at a specified time and
place. Each claimant was required to furnish an exemplification of his arms and the authority by which
the arms were borne. This might be a pedigree (signifying ancient usage), a document confirming a
right to arms, or a grant of arms (by means of letters patent). Failure to attend this summons would often
result in the payment of a hefty fine. The herald would then record the pedigree and sketch the arms in
sufficient detail for them to be transferred at a later date to the manuscript volumes which now comprise
the Library of Visitation Books at the College of Arms. If the arms and pedigree were found to be in
order, often by comparison with the records of an earlier visitation, then they were confirmed. If they
were lawful but in some way defective, corrections were made and recorded. If the herald was unable to
approve the claim, the usurper was required to renounce any right to the title or arms and to sign a
disclaimer. His name was then added to the public list of those whose claims had been refused. Those
who ignored the directive could be summoned to appear before the Earl Marshal in the Court of
Chivalry.
Ancient User was a legal claim based on constant use or custom since "time immemorial", otherwise
known as "time out of mind". In common law this was deemed to be 1189, although in the Court of
Chivalry it has been argued that the Norman Conquest of 1066 should be regarded as the limit of legal
memory. During the heralds' visitations of the seventeenth century a claim with proof of a prescriptive
use of arms from the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I (1558) was considered to be sufficient.
What is important to remember is that in their visitations the heralds did NOT confirm arms that had
been recently assumed...they were looking for usage of at least 40 to 120 years. In effect what was
being said by the Crown was "OK....a lot of arms have been assumed in the past...we'll turn a
reasonably blind eye as to just how "past" is past providing you register your arms now as from now on
assumed arms will be illegal and to be entitled to arms you'll have to prove your direct, legitimate, male
line descent from someone to whom the arms have been granted or allowed by the kings of arms".
That the Crown was serious about this was the fact that if your arms were not allowed by the kings of
arms and you continued to use them, you could be arrainged before the Court of Chivalry. Unfortuantely
the records of the Court are sparse until the late seventeenth century, when the Court, after a lapse of
some years, was revived and records were kept. The King's Advocate in the Court (the equivalent of the
Attorney General), who prosecuted offenders, set out articles detailing the offences a;;eged to have
been committed, and cited case law which hitherto had been virtually unknown in the Court. The Court
enjoyed a period of frenetic activity from 1687 until 1737, during which time Dr William Oldys and other
zealous doctors of Civil Law were the King's or Queen's Advocate.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : is wrong for anyone to assume arms BUT if a US citizen were to design
> : arms for himself or herself (and ensure that these did not copy any other
> : existing arms) AND made it quite plain to all and sundry that these were
> : assumed arms AND that they were of a "burgher" type and no pretension
> : to nobility was being made......then I could not seem that there would be
> : any great harm in it. For their part the adoptee, if I can use that word, would
> : have to accept that their arms would in some way be "second class" and
> : could in no way be equated to properly granted or inherited arms.
>
> I might point out that such assumed arms might well serve as a first step
> in obtaining a grant from a recognized heraldic authority outside the
> USA. In any case, matters in the US can't be regarded in a "strict UK
> point of view." =-)
I did say "if"!!!!!
> : It might be an idea if such arms were to bear a distinguishing mark (I am
> : hesitating to say a brisure) to denote that they were assumed.....and
> : obviously it would be wrong to use supporters, coronets of rank or
> : suchlike accoutrements.
>
> Perhaps, but it is difficult enough to educate Americans about proper
> heraldic traditions without introducing a further distinguishing mark.
> On the other hand, I certain agree that coronets of rank, supporters, and
> other augmentation which relate directly to one's rank or noble status
> should only be borne by those who are entitled to them.
Agreed.
> : See the comment I have made in another thread on the writs issued by Henry V
> : in 1417 when the Crown moved against self-assumed arms that did not date
> : from time immemorail. The writs were to prevent anyone bearing arms in
> : the forthcoming expedition to France unless entitled to them in right of his
> : ancestors or by a grant from a competent authority.
>
> It is difficult to find anything in this country that dates from "time
> immemorial," except of course for certain Native American traditions.
> Out of curiosity (and ignoring for the moment that the English College of
> Arms recognizes only its own grants), what extant heraldic authorities
> would you consider to be "competent" in the context suggested above? I'm
> just curious to get your opinion.
It is not true to say that the College of Arms only recognises its own grants....
it will register any authorised arms.....for a fee!!
Could I expand you question and give a quick run down on armorial practice in
each European country?
>
> : The Heralds' Visitations to particular counties were to "remove all false arms
> : and arms devised without authority". This is rather different from the gloss
> : you have put on them!!!
>
> Again, we have the problematic issue of determining the meaning of
> "authority." In the context of the UK, this would be limited to the
> College of Arms and Lord Lyon, but what about the determining the meaning
> of "authority" in a global context? It's not a simple question, but
> certainly one which needs asking. On the other hand, I readily admit my
> oversimplification of English heraldic visitations. Unfortuately, there
> is no satisfactory parallel to make my point vis a vis the USA.
In England "authority" is confirmation or grant by the kings of arms.....I would
try and give each European country's viewpoint in the summaris I am proposing.
> : However, I do not see why your government should not establish a "Federal Bureau
> : for Heraldic Affairs" or some such like body. Republics like Ireland have heraldic
> : bodies...why not the US of A????
>
> Without getting into the whole debate again (it was a topic of
> considerable interest on this newsgroup some time ago), people in the USA
> are very paranoid when it comes to official government bodies which
> impart an honor or status that might be considered "noble." Also, in the
> current political climate, it would be impossible to establish another
> government agency. The congress is looking at ways to reduce medical
> benefits for the poor and elderly, and is considering reducing many
> educational and social programs. Somehow, an office of arms, no matter
> how small or inexpensive, doesn't seem likely. It would be the greatest
> example of the "political lightning rod" yet invented. =-)
I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that an American grant should have
any noble connotations.....and surely such an office could be self funding from
the fees it charged the same as our College of Arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Hence I asume you approve of the system in Scotland where arms HAVE to be
matriculated before they can be used in public and the differencing in the
matriculated arms ensires that no two coats of arms are the same?
The matriculated coats are in the Public Register and can easily be looked up.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Ah HA! Here is the common ground (at last). I think that we can all
> agree that a "free for all" would serve only to diminish the meaning of
> heraldry, as well as jeopardize the ideal of unique grants to each
> armiger. The status which heraldry imparts (whether implied or formally
> conveyed) is a matter for individual nations to determine.
>
> However, we are still faced with the problem of many countries with no
> central heraldic authority (e.g., the USA). Most of these will not, in
> all probability, establish a clear heraldic authority. In these cases, I
> believe that non-profit organizations, such as the American College of
> Heraldry, are the only satisfactory alternative. Of course, grants by
> such bodies can impart no "official" status to the arms granted, but can
> serve as a registry to ensure uniqueness. In the USA, the only legal
> protection of arms is copyright, but the combination of a non-profit
> heraldic registry and copyright protection does accomplish much, so long
> as the registry is operated by persons who will do their best to preserve
> heraldic traditions in a multicultural context.
I entirely concur with Patrick's comments on this point!!!!
pos...@imap2.asu.edu
: How do you conceal a sword. Its not like 36" of steal is easy to hide.
It's a joke, Zach.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Message-ID: <527161...@londwill.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, Jun 04, 1995 14.24.46
Organization: The London Will Company
Reply-To: in...@londwill.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3qr5hq$c...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Lorne Gray)
writes:
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : That the Crown was serious about this was the fact that if your arms were
> not allowed by the kings of
> : arms and you continued to use them, you could be arrainged before the
> Court of Chivalry.
>
> Now if you can give me a documented case of a conviction of someone who
> had original arms (not someones else's that he had usurped), been turned
> down for confirmation, kept using them, and was convicted, I would love
> to see it. Otherwise, this statement is not supported.
OK...I'll see what I can do to find an answer for you....but as I have said the records
of the Court of Chivalry are sparse.....I'll write to Norry & Ulster and see if he can
help me....this might take some time and I hope John won't charge me a fee!!!!
> Unfortuantely
> : the records of the Court are sparse until the late seventeenth century, when the Court, after a lapse of
> : some years, was revived and records were kept. The King's Advocate in the Court (the equivalent of
the
> : Attorney General), who prosecuted offenders, set out articles detailing the offences a;;eged to have
> : been committed, and cited case law which hitherto had been virtually unknown in the Court.
>
> Now this is interesting. What case law? Where is it reported ? What
> did it stand for ? I'm not just being picky here, Patrick, I really want
> to know.
Same comment as above applies....also, The Heraldry Society publixhed a booklet in 1979 called
"Heraldic Cases in the Court of Chivalry 1623-1732"..I'll see if I can get hold of a copy
and I'll let you know what it says......
> OK Patrick, let me try another tack. Let's, for the sake of argument,
> say that once, arms were freely assumed, but that later, starting in
> 1417, the law changed so that assumed arms were illegal.
I think we have to be careful here.....we are talking about a period in English
history when the concept of "law" was still fairly fluid.....there was the Common
Law as administered by the King's Justices but very little statute law as such....
in many respects "law" was still the will of the King and not some metaphysical
abstraction which everyone, including the King, was subject to....for you to use
the phrase "the law changed" is to put a 20th century gloss on the subject which
has totally the wrong connotations.....I think it would be better to say that in about
1417 a change in the official attitude to the self-assumption of arms was evidenced
by the issue of the writs I have referred already made reference to.
> Fine. But even were that so, the simple fact of the matter is that the law
> has kept on changing, so that now, in England, there once again is no law against
> assuming original arms.
I think you have again missed my point:
1. The law administered by the Court of Chivalry is not the Common Law of England,
as practised in the King's Bench and other Common Law Courts , but the Civil Law -
that is the "Corpus Juris Civilis" of the Roman Emperor Justinian, as was practised
in the Court of Admiralty and in the ecclesiastical courts. It may seem absurd that legal
canons laid down in the sixth century should apply to a court which had jurisdiction over
a system of personal and corporate identity unknown to the Romans, but it must be
understood that it is only the procedure of the court which is governed by the Civil Law.
The law it administers is accepted as the law of England.
2. The Court of Chivalry IS the Court of the Earl Marshal and it administers the Law of
Arms in England which is the corpus of heraldic tradition as augmented by the rulings of
the kings of arms or by warrants from the Earl Marshal. The kings of arms continue to say
that no-one may bear and use arms without lawful authority...therefore that IS the law of arms
in England and could, if necessary, be enforced by the Court of the Earl Marshal (ie the Court
of Chivalry).
3. To put it another way.....the "ordinary" courts of this realm enforce the laws of England either as
laid down by Parliament or as inherited from past judicial decisions in the corpus of Common
Law. However, there is another strand to the laws of England, namely the Law of Arms, and this
is is enforced not through the "ordinary" courts but through the Court of Chivalry. This Court does
not MAKE the Law of Arms but ENFORCES the Law of Arms as laid down by the kings of arms and
the Earl Marshal...in no way is the Court of Chivalry "above" the kings of arms and the Earl Marshal
as it is the physical embodiment of the Earl Marshal's judicial function.
> If you want me to get my head out of the 14th century, then I have the right to ask you to get
> your head out of the 17th and 18th centuries, and come into the 20th.
But I am in the 20th century as I am stating what the law of arms in England currently IS whilst
you are harking back to a pre-1417 position which is no longer the Law of Arms in England as
laid down by the kings of arms.
> The Manchester Palace case made it very clear that no one in England was going to be
> prosecuted for assuming original arms. (unless of course, Parliament enacted statue law)
> To pretend that this is not so is just intellectually dishonest.
I do not have my copy of the transcript of the Manchester case to hand, but your's is a most novel
interpretation of the case. As you know, the plaintiffs won the case and the judgement delivered
by Lord Goddard, acting not as the Lord Chief Justice of England but as Lieutenant, Surrogate and
Assessor to the Earl Marshal, made three important points, two regarding the law of arms and the
other recommending future procedure:
1. In seeking judgement on their behalf the plaintiffs had sought that the defendants should not
display representations of their arms "without the leave and licence" of the plaintiffs. The Surrogate
delete that particular phrase as it suggested that an armiger might have the right to authorize and
permit another to use his arms. The Surrogate explained that if this phrase were included in the
judgement it would infringe the rights of the kings of arms, who alone can make grants of arms, and
might thereby deprive them of revenue. I have seen several situations reported in "The Heraldry
Gazette" where armigers have licensed others to use their arms and the kings of arms have
tactfully reminded them that is illegal. Badges, of course, do not come under this restriction and
may be licensed for use, for example, by subsidiary organizations within the jurisdiction of an
armigerous local authority. Such "licensing" of livery badges is undertaken with the consent of the kings
of arms, providing their rights are not abused.
(This then raises the question to what extent does the jurisdiction of the kings of arms apply to such
devices......let's leave this point until another day!!!)
2. The Surrogate also drew a distinction between bearing and using another's lawful arms as one's
own personal heridatament (ie usurping someone elses coat of arms) and displaying someone else's
arms on armorial souvenirs (eg wall maps, plaques, etc.) without claiming that these were one's own
arms. The Surrogate contended that display in the latter circumstances would not be a ground for
intervention by the Court of Chivalry. In other words, if you started to display my arms of Per Chevron
Gules and Sable in chief two Lions rampant combattant Or in base a Rose Argent barbed and seeded
proper overall a Bordure engrailed Argent as your own arms on your stationery, signest rings, cufflinks,
etc. then I could start an action against you in the Court of Chivalry BUT if you manufactured a set of wine
coasters entitled "Coats of Arms of Members of Rec.Heraldry" and included mine as one of the chosen
arms to be displayed, then I could not stop you.....I suppose I could copyright my arms but that, again, is
entirely another subject.....
3. Finally the Surrogate recommended that should there be any considerable desire for
further proceedings before the Court of Chivalry then the court should be put on a statutory basis,
defining its jurisdiction and the sacntions it can impose. In other words, the Surrogate was
recommending that the Court should be brought into line with the other English courts and not be left
handing out on a limb.....but as Lord Chief Justice of England who has no authority over the Earl
Marshal's Court he would say that, wouldn't he!!!!
As it happens, the "considerable desire" referred to by the Surrogate does not appear to have
materialized...but abuses of arms still occur and there is now no reason why a suitable case should not
be brought before the Court of Chivalry now that it's continuing existence and jurisdiction has been
confirmed.
I can find no reference in the Manchester case for your contention that no-one is going to be prosecuted
for assuming arms. Nor would I have expected to see such a reference as the Manchester case was not
about assuming arms but about using and displaying someone else's arms as if they were your own.
Lorne Gray
: In article: leg...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Lorne Gray) writes:
: > Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : English heraldry "x is y" then we have no option but to accept it.
: >
: > Not at all. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume
: > 35 pg. 476, : "The substance of the law of arms is to be found in the
: > up is:
: Quite....but I think we're missing the point here.....I'd like to quote verbatim the article on the Court of
: Chivalry written by John Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, for "The New Dictionary of
: Heraldry":
: <Quote>
snip
: [Brooke-Little goes on to explain inter alia the law that the court administers and a little of the history of
: the Court.....he ends, as is to be expected, by discussing the 1954 "Manchester" case....]
: In the sentence porrected by the plaintiffs (ie the judgement they sought) they prayed inter alia that the
: defendants should not display representations of their arms "without leave and licence" of the plaintiffs.
: The Surrogate, both Counsel consenting, deleted that particular phrase as it suggested that an armiger
: might have the right to authorize and permit another to use his arms. The Surrogate explained that if this
: phrase were included it would infringe the rights of the officers of arms, who alone can make grants, and
: might deprive them of revenue.
I agree totally that only Members of the College can make grants, and
that a grant from the College is "non transferrable". This point is a
natural extension of the main point in the case that a person or
corporation can not use the arms granted by the College to another. It
does not touch at all on the right to self assumed arms, which are a
separate matter completely.
: [cut]
: <End quote>
: The important points that Brooke-Little is making are:
: 1. The Court of Chivalry is the Court of the Earl Marshal....this is obviously significant as (a) the Earl
: Marshal has responsibility for the officers of arms and they are his advisers on all matters heraldic and
: (b) the court (ie courtroom) is physically part of the College of Arms (it is located in the front of the central
: section between the two wings)...it is impossible, therefore, that the Court of Chivalry would give a
: decision contrary to the advice of the officers of arms.
Patrick, the Court is separate from the College, and renders decisions
based on its interpretation of the Law, not on the College's. To give an
analogy. If the Court of Chivalry is analogous to a Criminal court,
then the College and the Advocate can (for the purposes of this analogy
only) be seen as similar to the Police and the Crown Prosecutor,
respectively. We would be in a very bad way indeed if the Judge in a
Criminal court could not make a decision contrary to the wishes of the
police and the Crown Prosecutor.
: 2. The Court of Chivalry is a court of redress, ie it is there to
protect the lawful armiger, not to administer the Law of Arms.
I must confess, this statement makes no sense to me whatsoever!! How on
earth can the Court protect the "lawful armiger" if it does not
administer the Law of Arms ??? How can it even determine who a "lawful
armiger" is if it does not administer the Law of Arms. Please clarify
what you are trying to say here. What purpose can a Court have except to
administer the law ???
: > A bit of explaination. A digest like Halsbury's is only as good as its
: > cites. The above statement is not true because it is in Halsbury's. It
: > is only true if the sources cited actually stand for that proposition.
: > Since I have not checked up on them, I cannot give an opinion on that,
: > but until contradicted, I will take this position. What the members of
: > the College say has really no bearing on what the ture law of arms is.
: > The true law of arms is summed up in the last case held in the Court of
: > Chivalry, the Manchester Palace case. Lord Goddard was quite clear in
: > saying that the Court should only be convened for really significant
: > cases, and that it should be put on a statutory basis if it is to be used
: > with any frequency. In other words, the Law of Arms states that unless
: > Parliament takes it upon itself to legislate in the matter, there is NO
: > enforceable law governing arms, with a possible exception for something
: > really significant, like the abuse of the arms of Public Intitutions. (which is
: > what that case was about)
: I do not agree with this comment as it shows a complete misunderstanding of the Law of Arms in
: England and Wales. If I may quote Norry and Ulster again:
OK, fine. But don't just say "oh you're wrong!", and then hide behind a
lengthy quote that does not address my specific points. Tell me WHY you
think my analysis is wrong.
: <Quote>
: The basis of the Law of Arms [in England and Wales] is that no-one may bear and use arms wihout
: lawful authority, and that arms are in the nature of an incorporeal hereditament and are inalienable,
: being inherited in accordance with the laws and usages of arms.
Right off we are into problems. In the Manchester Varieties case, Lord Goddard
found the grant of Arms to be a dignity, not an incorporeal hereditament.
Many of these basic laws are of great
: antiquity, but they are constantly being augmented either by rulings of the kings of arms or by warrants
: from the Earl Marshal. Thus, the ecclesiastical hats that may be used as insignia by the Romans
: Catholic and Anglican clergy were recently established by Earl Marshal's warrant. On the other hand,
: the use by a bishop of a mitre in place of a crest is an ancient and traditional use. The kings of arms
: recently ordered what mark of difference should be used on the arms of legitimated bastards granted
: their paternal arms under the terms of a royal licence. The difference between these two types of ruling
: is that an Earl Marshal's warrant can only be upset by a further warrant, whereas the kings of arms are at
: liberty to alter their rulings, or those of their predecessors, as and when they please: while having a
: healthy respect for precedents they are not bound by them.
: These laws, rules, conventions - call them what you will - are principally for the guidance of officers of
: arms. If they were ignored or flouted a case could be brought before the Court of Chivalry, but the result
: of such a case could not safely be anticipated, as the Court has never been called upon to deal with a
: minor breach of heraldic law, as from time to time promulgated by the Earl Marshal or the kings of arms.
: Thus there is the Law of Arms as deduced from judgements in cases that have come before the Court of
: Chivalry, and the laws of arms as detailed above, whose validity has not so far been challenged before
: the Court and probably never will, as the authority of the Earl Marshal and the kings of arms in
: matters heraldic is everywhere accepted.
: <end quote>
Patrick, this is an example of the vague, self serving gobbledegook that
the Members of the College have been pumping out for years. So what? If
you think a judge, even in the Court of Chivalry, is going to take this
mess seriously, you are greatly mistaken. Not once was any legal
precedent clearly cited. They even admit that they have no precedents to
stand on. It's just a lot of vague generalities strung
together. I thought that I was engaging in a serious debate on the law
here.
(some fine legal reasoning edited here)
: Again, I think you've missed the point. No-one is denying that assumed arms were ONCE accepted in
: England and Wales.....but the fact is that they are now NO LONGER lawful.
: Let us look at the Heralds' Visitations, for example:
: In 1417 the Crown sought to forbid the bearing of arms without its authority and the heralds were given
: the task of regulating the use of armorial bearings.
You are of course, referring to the writ of June 2, 1417 to the Sheriffs
of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Sussex, and Dorset. To quote Squibb again:
"By this writ the Sheriffs were ordered to proclaim that no one should
bear a coat of arms on the forthcoming expedition unless he possessed or
ought to have possessed it in right of his ancestors, or by the grant of
someone having sufficient power to make it, and that such a one should
show by whose grant he held his arms, those who had borne arms with the
King at the Battle of Agincourt only excepted
[here he quotes the writ in latin.
"Some have read into this a statement that previously men had assumed
arms of their own motion and have construed the writ as an attempt by the
Crown to prevent this for the future, with a saving for those who fought
at Agincourt. The writ was not, however, legislation, its object being
to regulate the army on a particular expedition, and it seems more
consistent with that object to regard the exception of those who has
fought at Agincourt, not as conferring a sort of 'battle honour' upon all
who had fought there, but as showing that they had for the purposes of
that occasion proved their right to their arms, and relieving those of
them proceeding on the later expedition from the necessity of repeting
the proof."
Even Squibb admits that "the writ was not, hovever, legislation, its
object being to regulate the army on a particular expedition"
Squibb argues that this writ, while not being the law, goes to show what
the state of the law was. The obvious question is, if that is the state
of the law, why did they have to circulate a special writ to tell people
about it? Further, why did they have to include a special penalty in the
writ? i.e. that any transgressors would not be allowed on the
expedition. If it was already law, then there would have been existing
penalties for any violations. Finally, if it were a law, would not the
writ have cited the statute involved?
I think it more reasonable to assume that the King was just trying to
make sure that no fights broke out from two men showing up with the same
arms. The men at Agincourt already has their arms registered, and the
writ was to ensure that others had their arms checked by the Heralds to
ensure against duplication.
Interestingly, Squibb immediately after this, gives examples of three men
who had assumed arms (borne time out of mind) having them confirmed by
the Heralds. What really seems to be going on here is that there is an
attempt to create a central registry of sorts to stop people from
assuming others arms. This level of regulation is natural in Heraldry,
and does not in any way suggest a restriction on the rights to assume any
new arms.
Nevertheless, "the bearing of coat armor" was so
: widely abused that it became necessary to ascertain precisely who was entitled to use arms and the
: English kings of arms were required to survey and record the devices and pedigrees of those claiming
: armigerous status and to correct any irregularities . Occasional tours of inquiry were held but it was not
: until the sixteenth century that the heralds' visitaions were undertaken in a regular and systematic way.
Again, you assume that the visitations were to stop the self assumption
of arms, yet many assumed arms were confirmed during the visitations.
The general rule was that 60 years user was required.
: In 1530, Clarenceaux King of Arms was authorized to travel throughout his provicne (south of the River
: Trent) and to enter all dwellings and churches to survey and record whatever arms he might find and "to
: put down or otherwise deface at his discretion....in plate, jewels, parchment, windows, gravetones and
: monuments or elsewhere wheresoever they may be set or placed" those arms he found to be assumed
: unlawfully. He was also to announce by proclamation a;; those who had usurped arms or titles such as
: knight, esquire or gentleman.
To play word games here, by using the term "assumed unlawfully", he is
implying that were was a way to "assume lawfully" (i.e. in the first
case, assume someone else's arms, in the second assume a unique coat for
yourself)
(lots of stuff deleted)
: Ancient User was a legal claim based on constant use or custom since "time immemorial", otherwise
: known as "time out of mind". In common law this was deemed to be 1189, although in the Court of
: Chivalry it has been argued that the Norman Conquest of 1066 should be regarded as the limit of legal
: memory. During the heralds' visitations of the seventeenth century a claim with proof of a prescriptive
: use of arms from the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I (1558) was considered to be sufficient.
I have already given my reasons as to why I think this theory is false.
: What is important to remember is that in their visitations the heralds
did NOT confirm arms that had
: been recently assumed...they were looking for usage of at least 40 to 120 years. In effect what was
: being said by the Crown was "OK....a lot of arms have been assumed in the past...we'll turn a
: reasonably blind eye as to just how "past" is past providing you register your arms now as from now on
: assumed arms will be illegal and to be entitled to arms you'll have to prove your direct, legitimate, male
: line descent from someone to whom the arms have been granted or allowed by the kings of arms".
The problem with this amnesty theory is that confirmations of assumed
arms continued for over 200 years!! If they were going to just
grandfather in everyone, then they would have done it over a set period
of time.
more next post.