personal and family arms confusion

[3gull...@gmail.com]

I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include elements of an ancestor's personal coat-of-arms in one of their own.

[Martin Goldstraw]

On Mar 27, 12:55 am, 3gullsb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include elements of an ancestor's personal coat-of-arms in one of their own.

Personal vs family

I am the recipient of a grant of arm from the College of Arms. These
arms are personal to me and can't be used by just anyone who happens
to share my surname. Members of my own family however may use my arms
by courtesy; my wife has a right to use them, my children have a right
to use them and any other descendants I may have in the male line
along with their wives and children will also have a right to use them
(suitably differenced and according to the "law of arms"). Therefore,
they are in fact family arms. But family arms does not mean surname
arms.

If you find that there is an existing coat of arms which belonged to
someone who happens to share your surname, but you can't prove a
connection to that person, it is perfectly acceptable to propose a
completely new design which reflects the existing coat and uses some
of the elements in it. It is probably best to have more than one
difference to the original coat just to make sure that the two can't
be mistaken. In Scotland, it is the way of things that all new coats
of arms for a particular name reflect and are similar to the first
known coat of arms for that name. If you are petitioning for arms from
any of the heraldic authorities they would advise appropriately.

Regards,
Martin
http://heraldryaddict.com

[Domenico Cervasi]

On Mar 27, 6:12 am, Martin Goldstraw <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 12:55 am, 3gullsb...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> > I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include elements of an ancestor's personal coat-o,f-arms in one of their own.

>
> Personal vs family
>
> I am the recipient of a grant of arm from the College of Arms. These
> arms are personal to me and can't be used by just anyone who happens
> to share my surname. Members of my own family however may use my arms
> by courtesy; my wife has a right to use them, my children have a right
> to use them and any other descendants I may have in the male line
> along with their wives and children will also have a right to use them
> (suitably differenced and according to the "law of arms"). Therefore,
> they are in fact family arms. But family arms does not mean surname
> arms.
>
> If you find that there is an existing coat of arms which belonged to
> someone who happens to share your surname, but you can't prove a
> connection to that person, it is perfectly acceptable to propose a
> completely new design which reflects the existing coat and uses some
> of the elements in it. It is probably best to have more than one
> difference to the original coat just to make sure that the two can't
> be mistaken. In Scotland, it is the way of things that all new coats
> of arms for a particular name reflect and are similar to the first
> known coat of arms for that name. If you are petitioning for arms from
> any of the heraldic authorities they would advise appropriately.
>
> Regards,
> Martinhttp://heraldryaddict.com

Thank you for this. I have no idea when and how arms "retire". I
suppose at some point they became meaningless to my ancestors. In
fact, while I personally find it reasonable that an ancestor did bear
arms, I identify more with my family's country of origin than such
ancestor. Of course, there are national and municipal arms and symbols
reflecting places. Is adding an element of these to one's personal
arms fair game?

[Turenne]

It wouldn't do any harm to incorporate an element of a town's coat of arms, say a wolf, if you came from Rome, a red cross for Milan, a red fleur-de-lys for Florence or my favourite, a crowned white gryphon for Perugia. I have been unable to find any arms relating to Cervasi, but I'm sure that they exist somewhere. I did find some arms on an advert for an olive oil company. Are these the arms you were referring to earlier?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cervasi.com/images/Cervasi-Logo.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.cervasi.com/&h=289&w=431&sz=11&tbnid=DedYY45hJgT84M:&tbnh=107&tbnw=159&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcervasi%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=cervasi&usg=__tLmPC7sV9BJhr3rrPk6rE7vXXYo=&docid=GqESu-qyP-bcTM&sa=X&ei=zWlTUZe1L-iV0AXkhYGADw&ved=0CGQQ9QEwCw&dur=485

RL

[Domenico Cervasi]

Hi Turenne,

I don't think there's a relation to the company. Actually, I prefer instead to go down the path of designing a new coat-of-arms and to learn something (and maybe contribute) in the process. My family is from Sicily and I was born in the United States. When I first started looking into this, I was totally confused. The US doesn't have a monarchy - and never wanted one. And, as someone who knows a thing about Sicilian history, it seems that Sicily has had several monarchies and with the exception of the Norman ones probably didn't benefit so much from any others.

My attitude had been something like this: "I don't have a sovereign and don't want my arms granted by one." Then I learned about "burgher arms" which sounded right. I have a trade and am, basically, a Commoner with a capital C - because I'm at liberty not to have a lord and such rule over me.

Then I began to investigate the concept of registries and the benefits of registering the arms. Yet, that's a long way off. I really ought to stay at the beginning and understand more about what elements are appropriate for the coat-of-arms. For instance, are supporters an arbitrary thing for someone of my ilk or are they meant for someone who does value royalty.

[gregs talkin]

On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, 3gullsb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include elements of an ancestor's personal coat-of-arms in one of their own.

The subject of family arms has been a point of discussion for many
years. In Britain and Ireland, the custom and the law, has always been
hte arms are born by a single person and sons and daughters.

The idea of family arms may have sprung from Scandinavian countries
and perhaps Germany, as customs change from place to place over time.
In the old days some countries; Ireland among them, had many citizens
who just made up their own arms as regulations were very loose at the
time so unregisterd arms were everywhere. Therefore the family arms
legend may have sprung from that as well. I think that you are on the
right track with a design of your own, and of course you can
incorporate known familial elements. Genealogical research may yeild
more information that can add to your design. I would exhaust all
your sources before you commit: you never know what you're going to
find!

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 28 Mar at 17:44, gregs talkin <gregsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, 3gullsb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still
> > very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is
> > mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is
> > attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and
> > last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in
> > fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct
> > connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable
> > practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include
> > elements of an ancestor's personal coat-of-arms in one of their own.
>
> The subject of family arms has been a point of discussion for many
> years. In Britain and Ireland, the custom and the law, has always been
> hte arms are born by a single person and sons and daughters.

Not totally true, IMHO.

I am talking solely about the practices in England as the Scots are
another matter altogether.

Amongst the many people with the Powys surname are:

1. The Thomas P. who was granted arms by Bysshe around 1663, currently
known only from Bysshe's notebook. The notebook only records the grant,
not the precise words and certainly has nothing saying that the grant
applied to previous generations.

2. An ancestor of Thomas P. was a William P. who died in 1577. He was a
tanner in Ludlow and did not have any arms.

3. Another descendant of William P. was Thomas Jelf P., died in 1808,
who did not have, nor any of his ancestors had, a grant of arms. But he
used the same arms as granted to Thomas P. And Thomas Jelf P. then left
a will leaving his estate to his wife for her life and then to one Henry
Wentworth Feilding, his second grandson by his eldest co-heiress
daughter, but with a name and arms clause.

4. In 1832 after the death of his grandmother, Lissey Ann Powys, Henry
Wentworth Feilding duly got the College of Arms to organise a royal
licence to give him the surname and arms of Powys. He died unmarried
and childless in 1875 and by an unknown route I was eventually given the
original exemplification of this RL, done by the College of Arms.
Remarkably these Powys arms were identical to those granted to Thomas
Powys (No 1 above), and this was done by the College of Arms.

So the College must believe in some concept of family arms where family
means with the same surname and not descended from an original grantee
yet distantly related to such a grantee. Further absolutely no
difference was mentioned or included in the Exemplification, so that can
be forgotten as well.

I think the English have a fairly clear practice of family arms whereby
all people related to, not descended from, an armigerous line may use
the armigerous line's arms providing they have the same name.


PS If the current representative of Henry Wentworth Powys would care to
apply to me, I will gladly pass on this ornate exemplification.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 28 Mar at 2:16, Domenico Cervasi <3gull...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> I don't think there's a relation to the company. Actually, I prefer
> instead to go down the path of designing a new coat-of-arms and to
> learn something (and maybe contribute) in the process. My family is
> from Sicily and I was born in the United States. When I first started
> looking into this, I was totally confused. The US doesn't have a
> monarchy - and never wanted one. And, as someone who knows a thing
> about Sicilian history, it seems that Sicily has had several
> monarchies and with the exception of the Norman ones probably didn't
> benefit so much from any others.

You live in and are a citizen of the USA. So there is no law nor any
regulation for coats of arms.

There are other republics that regulate, in some manner, coats of arms,
so monarchy does not have to be involved.

> My attitude had been something like this: "I don't have a sovereign
> and don't want my arms granted by one." Then I learned about "burgher
> arms" which sounded right. I have a trade and am, basically, a
> Commoner with a capital C - because I'm at liberty not to have a lord
> and such rule over me.

You are confusing feudal practices with heraldry. Heraldry may have
originated in feudal times but it is just as valid now as it was then;
just forget about feudalism.

> Then I began to investigate the concept of registries and the benefits
> of registering the arms. Yet, that's a long way off. I really ought to
> stay at the beginning and understand more about what elements are
> appropriate for the coat-of-arms.

Any design you want, preferably unique, on some surface, call them
shield, lozenge or whatever. There are one or two rules of thumb about
use of colours. The colours are simple without precise wavelengths and
up to the painter to interpret.

> For instance, are supporters an arbitrary thing for someone of my ilk
> or are they meant for someone who does value royalty.

Supporters are not part of the shield, the core of a coat of arms, nor
is a crest nor a motto. Different countries have different practices.
In the USA there are no practices, so you can do what you like. Have
you tried The International Association of Amateur Heralds
<www.amateurheralds.org>?

[Domenico Cervasi]

Thank you Tim. This is very helpful and, to be honest, disarming in a relieving way. I'm in the process of registering with the International Association of Amateur Heralds. Ran into a technical snafu. I'll start designing a blazon of my own and post it in the near future. That should be fun. Thanks again.

[Martin Goldstraw]

On Mar 28, 8:09 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> I think the English have a fairly clear practice of family arms whereby
> all people related to, not descended from, an armigerous line may use
> the armigerous line's arms providing they have the same name.

Hmm. Whilst there is always an exception to the rule, and especially
so in the above cited Powys case, this is more of an historical
anomaly from a time when the heralds thought more of their purses and
worked by the premise that he who pays the piper calls the tune; if
you paid enough you could almost get away with anything. I don't think
that is the case today and I'm confident that there would be no
official sanction by the College of Arms for any Tom Dick or unrelated
Harry to take up the arms of (say) Sir Mark Thatcher just because they
happened to share his surname. With this in mind, I'm not at all sure
how you manage to come to the conclusion that there is a "fairly clear

practice of family arms whereby all people related to, not descended
from, an armigerous line may use the armigerous line's arms providing

they have the same name." Unless of course you are referring to the
folk lore of the bucket shop?

Regards,
Martin
http://heraldryaddict.com

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 29 Mar at 11:44, Martin Goldstraw <herald...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 8:09 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think the English have a fairly clear practice of family arms
> > whereby all people related to, not descended from, an armigerous
> > line may use the armigerous line's arms providing they have the same
> > name.
>
> Hmm. Whilst there is always an exception to the rule, and especially
> so in the above cited Powys case, this is more of an historical
> anomaly from a time when the heralds thought more of their purses and
> worked by the premise that he who pays the piper calls the tune; if
> you paid enough you could almost get away with anything.

I think that statement is completely over the top. Not to mention
rubbish.

> I don't think that is the case today and I'm confident that there
> would be no official sanction by the College of Arms for any Tom Dick
> or unrelated Harry to take up the arms of (say) Sir Mark Thatcher just
> because they happened to share his surname.

That is not what I said, though you do get that right below.

Further there might well be a change in attitude of heralds in the last
50 years, notably in the addition of clauses about adding distinction
marks in new grants when the arms are used by cadets.

This opens up the fact that the rules of the game are not publicly
available in England (should I add 'and Wales'?). There is no publicly
available list of all the rulings by the College of Arms. So we have a
variety of interpretations about what are and what are not the currently
acceptable practices. And a dispute about whether older practices were
acceptable or not, tiether then or now.

The Court of Chivarly, where such matters could be argued, is defunct.
There are no powers to enforce any ruling. There are no penalties for
ignoring advice from on high, as with the occasional plaintive appeals
from Kings of Arms to Councils to stop using the arms they currently
display.

> With this in mind, I'm not at all sure how you manage to come to the
> conclusion that there is a "fairly clear practice of family arms
> whereby all people related to, not descended from, an armigerous line
> may use the armigerous line's arms providing
> they have the same name." Unless of course you are referring to the
> folk lore of the bucket shop?

No I am not referring to such folk lore. I am referring to clear
practice in the past which noone has ever declared to be contrary to the
rules. (I except your latest opinions as they are not binding on anyone
else!)

[Martin Goldstraw]

On Mar 29, 2:18 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> On 29 Mar at 11:44, Martin Goldstraw <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 8:09 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> > > I think the English have a fairly clear practice of family arms
> > > whereby all people related to, not descended from, an armigerous
> > > line may use the armigerous line's arms providing they have the same
> > > name.
>
> > Hmm. Whilst there is always an exception to the rule, and especially
> > so in the above cited Powys case, this is more of an historical
> > anomaly from a time when the heralds thought more of their purses and
> > worked by the premise that he who pays the piper calls the tune; if
> > you paid enough you could almost get away with anything.
>
> I think that statement is completely over the top.  Not to mention
> rubbish.
>

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I disagree but your faith in the
probity and ability of some of the early heralds does you credit.

Regards,
Martin

[Derek Howard]

<snip>

The flaw in the argument is that the arrangements described by you above were only possible by virtue of a Royal Licence - in other words, the direct authority of the Crown to do something out of the ordinary which would not otherwise be permitted. The RL does not allow what the heralds thought of as the permissible norm but exactly the opposite. The RL illustrates what was not otherwise permissible. The heralds only acted as agents in the application for the RL that they do not have power themselves to grant.

Derek Howard

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Please go to the top of the class for spotting this obvious lacuna.

The interesting thing is that the College keeps a record of the precise
text of old RLs. (I know this because they have done transcripts for me
to determine how three out of my four great-grandfathers managed to
change their birth surnames.) The question is whether they copied the
text before or after it was submitted to HM to initial. Everything says
to me that they copied the text before the Signing Manual. How else, I
wonder, would this immortal rider be always inserted near the end:

"Know Ye therefore that WE ... have given and granted to ...Our Royal
Licence that they may take and henceforth use the surname of ... and
bear the arms of ... the said arms being first duly ememplified
according to the Laws of Arms and recorded in Our College of Arms
otherwise this Our Licence and permission to be voided and of none
effect."

This is akin to the rider in wills drawn up by solicitors that the
solicitors may charge for administering the will. Feathering a nest it
is called.

I then wonder whether, having used the words 'Laws of Arms' the College
would allow anything to go forward that was not in accord with their
Laws (whatever they may be). I consider it self-evident that the
contents of Licences do not contains contradictions to the Laws of Arms.

The next consideration is why people bothered to go to the fuss and
expense of RLs. I do not think it is anything to do with breaking any
Law. Much more likely it is because they were forced to do something
pretty serious because of the Will that made some such thing a condition
for inheriting a modest estate. I think the testators were concerned
that the change of names and arms must stick and for that reason earlier
wills even required the beneficiary to get a private Act of Parliament
passed.

The problem with Private Acts of Parliament is that they were badly
worded. I have the text of the Act for the change of name from Shute to
Barrington and the curious thing is that it made no mention of any
change of arms. This did not stop these Shutes from adopting all the
quarters of the Barringtons, to none of which did they have any blood
connection. Anyhow, I cannot believe the College had a hand in this Act
of Parliament whereas I am very sure that they have hands in most if not
all Royal Licences, certainly those for name and arms changes.