Kate Middleton's arms
Graham Milne
ArtyO
wrote:
> What arms do people think Kate Middleton should have?
Hi Graham;
Perhaps a differing question would be, do you think her father will
now petition for arms, and will this process be fast tracked for the
wedding
by next summer. (Much like our new Canadian Governor General's arms
were fast tracked for his instillation, approx time 6 weeks!)
Capt Stephen Chledowski
Turenne
>
> Perhaps a differing question would be, do you think her father will
> now petition for arms, and will this process be fast tracked for the
> wedding
> by next summer. (Much like our new Canadian Governor General's arms
> were fast tracked for his instillation, approx time 6 weeks!)
>
I'm pretty sure that her father will petition for arms. Impaled arms
on Wedgewood wedding crockery looks rather nifty!!
I've found a couple of armigerous Yorkshire Middletons. Middleton of
Stockfield: Arg, a fretty sa and Middleton of Leam: Or a saltire
engrailed, sa, an eagle's head erazed or.
If Garter finds some sort of connection with either of these
Middletons, he might consider basing Mr Middletons arms on one of
them.
Richard
Turenne
Should read: Middleton of Leam: *On* a saltire engrailed, sa, an
eagle's head erazed or.
RL
Joseph McMillan
>
> I've found a couple of armigerous Yorkshire Middletons. Middleton of
> Stockfield: Arg, a fretty sa and Middleton of Leam: Or a saltire
> engrailed, sa, an eagle's head erazed or.
>
"Arthur Middleton, Esq., was [acting] Governor of South Carolina in
1725, and dying in 1737 left three sons, William, Henry and Thomas.
The second and third sons married and left issue in South Carolina.
William, the eldest son, married Sarah, daughter of Morton Wilkinson
of S. C, by whom he had William, Thomas, who died in S. C, John and
Arthur. He lived at Crowfield Hall, Suffolk, England, and was
succeeded by his eldest son, William, who was created a Baronet in
1804, which title devolved at his death in 1830, upon his only son,
Sir William Fowle Middleton-Fowle, the second Baronet. He died without
issue in 1860, when the Baronetcy became extinct and the
representation of the family passed to the descendants, if any, of his
uncle Thomas of S. C. The arms of the family are,—Argent, fretty
sable; on a canton per chevron of the second and or, an unicorn's head
likewise per chevron gules and gold, the horn of the last and sable.
Crest, A garb or, banded vert, between two wings sable."
Arthur Middleton's son Henry and his descendants played an eminent
role in U.S. and South Carolina history. The tomb of Arthur's
grandson, also named Arthur, (a signer of the Declaration of
Independence) is carved with the same arms, except that the canton is
plain Sable.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/234/519511069_012b87cd2c.jpg?v=0
Joseph McMillan
Sebastian Nelson
wrote:
> What arms do people think Kate Middleton should have?
The Chief
You seem to be ignoring the very real possibility that her father does
not qualify for a grant of English arms.
Regards,
The Chief
Joseph McMillan
>
> You seem to be ignoring the very real possibility that her father does
> not qualify for a grant of English arms.
>
What else is required?
Joseph McMillan
The Chief
The infamous requirement to have attained the "port of a gentleman",
of course! It is not like USC - pay your fee, get your degree!
Translation: as of last time I enquired, the COA were still insisting
on proof of gentility, such as membership of suitable professions or
professional associations, university degrees, officer in armed
forces, etc. It was clear that NOT ALL applicants were accepted.
Hence my comment regarding Mr. Middleton - it is not obvious to me
that he qualifies, but then I know very little of the man.
Regards,
The Chief
the_ver...@comcast.net
The COA will *never* reject an application for arms from the future
father-in-law of the future King of The United Kingdom - count on it.
Zwartendÿk
romance, I think a turtle holding a crown would be an appropriate
crest and a motto along the lines of "La patience couronnee" or "Mieux
vaut tard que jamais"....
Zwartendÿk
crowned or!
Graham Milne
> Or perhaps rather as crest a turtle sejant holding a heart gules
> crowned or!
The turtle dove is a sign of constancy so it would be very nice - but
perhaps doesn't mix too well with lions rampant and all that sort of
thing.
Zwartendÿk
> The turtle dove is a sign of constancy so it would be very nice - but
> perhaps doesn't mix too well with lions rampant and all that sort of
> thing.
I actually meant a tortoise! But I agree a turtle dove would have been
a nice outward romantic touch with a mean canting joke behind!
Zwartendÿk
would be wonderful allusions to the Middleton's party accessories
business! And for that reason there gotta be lots of stuff "lozengy
gules and or" in it too! :-)
nicho...@gmail.com
Have you ever heard of anyone actually being rejected recently? I
certainly haven't.
As for the Mr. Middleton he's an entrepreneur worth several million
quid, and a pilot. Either would qualify him. He may already have them,
as apparently he looked into it in 2007. His youngest daughter,
Fillipa, reportedly wore a signet ring to a friend's wedding in May.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7696798/Kate-Middletons-sister-runs-rings-around-jealous-friends.html
Nick
Graham Milne
When you said 'turtle' I thought of Shakespeare's poem 'The Phoenix
and the Turtle' (meaning Turtle Dove). I think the turtle dove in
heraldry is just called a turtle.
Joseph McMillan
> of course!
There is no such thing. The phrase is "bear the port and countenance
of a gentleman," which was a fancy 17th century way of saying "be able
to afford to live like a gentleman."
> Translation: as of last time I enquired, the COA were still insisting
> on proof of gentility, such as membership of suitable professions or
> professional associations, university degrees, officer in armed
> forces, etc.
And you believed them? Once again we ask for someone to produce an
example in the last 50 years of someone who was turned down.
Joseph McMillan
Turenne
> On Nov 19, 12:20 am, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>The infamous requirement to have attained the "port of a gentleman",
>of course! It is not like USC - pay your fee, get your degree!
>Translation: as of last time I enquired, the COA were still insisting
>on proof of gentility, such as membership of suitable professions or
>professional associations, university degrees, officer in armed
>forces, etc. It was clear that NOT ALL applicants were accepted.
If you take the benchmark as Lords Sugar and Archer of W-S-M, then
anyone; and I mean anyone, shouldn't find any impediment to acquiring
arms.
Richard L
Graham Milne
Yes, but they can't turn down a lord. The monarch can make a lord but
not a gentleman (which is why I've never asked).
Turenne
>
> Yes, but they can't turn down a lord. The monarch can make a lord but
> not a gentleman (which is why I've never asked).
Tonbridge and Epsom. Res ipsa loquitur you are a gentleman!
Richard L
Emungo
Turenne
>
> Does Archer have arms? What are they?
Actually, he may not have any arms. I'd've thought he would have
jumped at the chance (cue: quills, Olympic medals, Nobel Prize medals,
ducal coronet etc.) Argent, six pallets, sable would remind him of his
time in clink....
Lord Sugar does have arms. I seem to remember that he was granted
supporters recently.
RL
Emungo
Yes, it was in the most recent College of Arms newsletter. But he's
not a convicted perjurer like Archole.
Turenne
>
> Yes, it was in the most recent College of Arms newsletter. But he's
> not a convicted perjurer like Archole.
We are obviously on the same heraldic wavelength!
RL
The Chief
> On Nov 19, 12:20 am, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The infamous requirement to have attained the "port of a gentleman",
> > of course!
>
> There is no such thing. The phrase is "bear the port and countenance
> of a gentleman," which was a fancy 17th century way of saying "be able
> to afford to live like a gentleman."
You surprise me - if you do a search for "port of a gentleman" you
will find many instances, including in Webster's.
>
> > Translation: as of last time I enquired, the COA were still insisting
> > on proof of gentility, such as membership of suitable professions or
> > professional associations, university degrees, officer in armed
> > forces, etc.
>
> And you believed them? Once again we ask for someone to produce an
> example in the last 50 years of someone who was turned down.
Why would I not believe the statement of a gentleman? And I would
reverse the question: how many manual labourers, etc, have received
grants?
Regards,
The Chief
>
> Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan
>
> Why would I not believe the statement of a gentleman? And I would
> reverse the question: how many manual labourers, etc, have received
> grants?
>
Joseph McMillan
Graham Milne
Ah! There lies the difference. A labourer (even if he is a millionaire
e.g. most bankers) doesn't apply for arms even if he has the money; a
gentleman will even if he doesn't. In other words, 'labourers' don't
understand what is important and why
- and that is what makes them 'labourers'.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<the_ver...@comcast.net> wrote:
Precisely. The generous employer of the members of the Household that
live in the College might well give a firm instruction to said
employees.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Outis
wrote:
Bit tautological, wouldn't you say?
In any case the distinction between gentlemen and labourers is pretty
much obsolete. Few respectable member of the society today is
without profession, and having no profession -- i.e. not being part
of the labour market -- is no longer a sign of gentility. Basically,
there can no longer be an objective standard of gentility other the
willingness and ability to purchase a sign of gentility.
As for Miss Middleton. This marriage will be a first in many ways, I
wonder if she wouldn't make another first by petitioning for an arms
in her own right rather than bearing her father's. She must have as
much say in this as Mr Middleton in this matter.
Graham Milne
>
> - Show quoted text -
But the whole point is that it is not obsolete and never will be
because it is a matter of attitude that has nothing to do with wealth.
Andrew Chaplin
news:f8c52ca8-81f2-4092...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> But the whole point is that it is not obsolete and never will be
> because it is a matter of attitude that has nothing to do with wealth.
By that subjective a standard, Mr. Middleton is likely already
considered a gentleman by all who know him, and that would almost
certainly include the Queen.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
The Chief
Probably quite a few. Remember that some labourers or unskilled
workers - because of generous overtime - have the ability to earn
substantial incomes. Think dockers, or prison warders, for example.
For several generations it has been proverbial that a docker could
have substantially more income than a parson, for example. The docker
would of course be "working class", no matter what his income, while
the parson would be a gentleman, no matter what his income.
To get back to the original point - I would repeat that the last time
I talked to the COA they were still looking for traditional signs of
"gentility" - membership of professions and professional or chartered
organisations, university degrees, commissioned officers in armed
services, etc.
Regards,
The Chief
StephenP
> To get back to the original point - I would repeat that the last time
> I talked to the COA they were still looking for traditional signs of
> "gentility" - membership of professions and professional or chartered
> organisations, university degrees, commissioned officers in armed
> services, etc.
That still holds good BUT they also look for those who have
contributed to "society". Thus a docker who has been involved in
charity work etc would get a favourable reception. Furthermore,
having a degree is a much easier threshold now than it was twenty or
so years ago.
Stephen
The Chief
> On Nov 21, 6:14 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > To get back to the original point - I would repeat that the last time
> > I talked to the COA they were still looking for traditional signs of
> > "gentility" - membership of professions and professional or chartered
> > organisations, university degrees, commissioned officers in armed
> > services, etc.
>
> That still holds good BUT they also look for those who have
> contributed to "society". Thus a docker who has been involved in
> charity work etc would get a favourable reception.
Well, it is of course open to anyone to "better themselves" via such
activities or education..... these things are not set in stone - I
think being "working class" is a lifestyle choice these days.
Furthermore,
> having a degree is a much easier threshold now than it was twenty or
> so years ago.
Of course, but by definition you cannot have a degree and be "working
class"....
Regards,
The Chief
>
> Stephen
Graham Milne
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean that working class people are, by definition, thick b*&$!
%@s!? (Speaking as someone who never went to uni)
GFL
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Miss Middleton's background is a combination of some working class
ancestors but also a number of lawyers and in her parents generation a
bit of entrepreneurship. Except for the lawyers in earlier generations
there might not have been indication that the family were gentle in
the traditional sense. Miss Middleton did complete a University degree
though and more importantly it is as Andrew said quite clear that her
father is a gentleman. Otherwise it would be inconceivable that Prince
William of Wales would have asked him for his daughter's hand in
marriage.
In response to the idea that new arms should be in Miss Middleton's
own right I would disagree. The event of a royal marriage is important
enough for the family it would be a shame for those arms to die out
with Miss Middleton. I would suggest that if a grandfather survives
then the arms might be granted to him or with suitable differences to
his descendents.
I would also suggest very very simple arms. Vert (a fresh spring
green) or Bleu celeste (for the parents' airline careers) a bezant.
That's it. For a crest I like the idea of the turtle.
Outis
> > > But the whole point is that it is not obsolete and never will be
> > > because it is a matter of attitude that has nothing to do with wealth.
By this logic, anyone who petitions and pays for an arms is ipso facto
a gentleman. If this is the case, then the gentility requirement is
completely moot.
On the other hand, there are several non-armigerous peers, as well as
families who bore arms from time immorial but never bothered to
matriculate their arms, would all be considered non-gentle.
On Nov 21, 9:22 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> You mean that working class people are, by definition, thick b*&$!
> %@s!? (Speaking as someone who never went to uni)
Let's not forget that many university graduates are famously
unemployable these days. It's been an education crisis that has been
plaguing much of Europe and America for some time.
On Nov 21, 10:38 pm, GFL <georgelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the idea that new arms should be in Miss Middleton's
> own right I would disagree. The event of a royal marriage is important
> enough for the family it would be a shame for those arms to die out
> with Miss Middleton. I would suggest that if a grandfather survives
> then the arms might be granted to him or with suitable differences to
> his descendents.
>
> I would also suggest very very simple arms. Vert (a fresh spring
> green) or Bleu celeste (for the parents' airline careers) a bezant.
> That's it. For a crest I like the idea of the turtle.
I think the very very simple arms is an excellent idea, but aren't
arms that simple all taken already?
I understand, too, that the royal marriage would be an important part
of the Middleton's family history. At the same time, it is Miss
Kate's younger brother who would be the likely heraldic heir. In this
day and age, it's not too flattering for an aspiring young man to be
distinguished solely by having an well-married sister -- especially if
he has inherited any of his father's self-made entrepreneurial spirit.
In any case, all this debate about what constitutes gentility points
to the simple fact that the notion of gentility is really quite
obsolete. The term originally denoted hereditary descent of a gentry,
later it broadened to include the socio-economic class that can afford
the same standard of living without practicing a profession, and later
still it included many professions with the same level of income.
Nowadays, no one can give gentility a clear-cut and universal
definition that won't go unchallenged. My best attempt would be that
gentility is simply the ability to be tolerably unembarrassing under
fairly light scruitiny -- it's a lousy criteria to base any decision
on, other than who you may want to invite to a dinner party.
-- o
Graham Milne
'all this debate about what constitutes gentility points
to the simple fact that the notion of gentility is really quite
obsolete.'
Gentility means nothing more than good manners or consideration for
others and on that basis the concept of gentility will never be
obsolete because if is fundamental to the human condition. Marks of
gentility are another thing of course.
Outis
Aye, quite so. But here you are now talking about the "gentility"
used in common language rather than "gentility" in the socio-economic
sense. As I said, the term gentility initially denoted descent, and
later of an economic strata. The gentility that you described here
(good manners, etc.) were signs and virtues expected of this socio-
economic class. With the rise of the middle class, literacy,
universal education, and the spread of egalitarian ideals, these
virtues came to be expected of all walks of life. When I say that
"gentility is obsolete", I don't mean that the word "gentle" has no
meaning--nobody would argue that--but rather that "gentility" as a
socio-economic classification, which is obviously what is more
relevant in this discussion, is obsolete.
Peter Constantine
> When I say that "gentility is obsolete", I don't mean that the word
> "gentle" has no meaning--nobody would argue that--but rather that
> "gentility" as a socio-economic classification, which is obviously
> what is more relevant in this discussion, is obsolete.
Quite so. "Gentility" is certainly not a requirement for a grant of arms
from the CoA where it is only things such as university degrees,
professional qualifications, public service or eminence in national or
local life that are taken into account.
As a company director and former British Airways officer, Michael
Middleton should have no problem obtaining a grant of arms (if he has
not already done so - there were reports as long as four years ago that
enquiries were being made at the College).
x
Outis
Interesting article, but I wonder: when they put the word "rumour" in
quotes, does it mean that it's really a fact and not a rumour, or that
it's so unsubstantiated that it's not even worthy of being called a
rumour?
"The Garter King of Arms can refuse to grant arms if he feels the
applicant is wanting them for the wrong reasons."
What can be a "wrong reason" to seek arms, I wonder.
-o
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip in the interests of brevity>
> 'all this debate about what constitutes gentility points to the simple
> fact that the notion of gentility is really quite obsolete.'
>
> Gentility means nothing more than good manners or consideration for
> others and on that basis the concept of gentility will never be
> obsolete because if is fundamental to the human condition. Marks of
> gentility are another thing of course.
I detect some curious confusion here. According to the last paragraph
we could well have, and may even have right now, an armiger or three who
displayed absolutely no signs of gentility, the contrary even. But he
remains an armiger. So your definition of 'gentility' has to be
inadequate.
Graham Milne
Manners makyth man. I am sure we would all rather know a well-mannered
and considerate non-armiger (or perhaps 'well-bred' is a better
description) than a loutish armiger. After all, Catherine Middleton is
a non-armiger and no-one would suggest that she is not a lady.
Evidently, Prince William didn't go around thinking 'Now what nice
armigers are there at St. Andrews?' What's good enough for him is good
enough for me.
barrassie
A seargent who sewrved in the Falklands told me that he approached the
COA but was told that they usually granted Arms to commissioned
officers, he then Petitioned Lord Lyon was granted Arms as virtuous
and well deserving. He then visted the COA where he told me he was
received and treated with more respect.
I have come across Troopers and one tailor granted Arms by the Lord
Lyon in the 18th century.
CMKH
Turenne
wrote:
> I have come across Troopers and one tailor granted Arms by the Lord
> Lyon in the 18th century.
Shakespeare's father's application for a Coat of Arms in 1570 was
refused. Whether this was because he was a secret catholic or because
he was a glover hasn't been established.
On October 20, 1596 Garter King of Arms granted John Shakespeare
arms.
Richard L
nicho...@gmail.com
Perhaps (as arms are a personal and familial identification device)
this rule a[plies to people who want to use their grants to wrongly
claim membership in a different family?
For example some random dude named Mr. Bernadete who insisted on Azure
Three Crowns Or, or a close variant thereof...
Nick
Outis
Usurpation and demonstrable fraudulant intent is so blatantly obvious
grounds for refusal that I think it goes without saying. I can't help
but feel that the "wrong reason" must mean something else entirely.
By the way, you raise an interesting scenario. Let's say if the
Bernadotte is diposed tomorrow, both Prince Daniel and Prince Carl
Philip emigrate to the UK and both petition for the matriculation of
the Vasa-Bernadotte arms, would either of them be accepted?
Graham Milne
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, but everyone in Scotland considers themselves to be royalty - or
at least they consider that royalty is no better than they are. I
certainly consider myself to be on a par with the Emperor of China.
nicho...@gmail.com
It's possible.
But blatently obvious facts have a tendency to not be obvious to
idiots, and many idiots can afford lawyers.
> By the way, you raise an interesting scenario. Let's say if the
> Bernadotte is diposed tomorrow, both Prince Daniel and Prince Carl
> Philip emigrate to the UK and both petition for the matriculation of
> the Vasa-Bernadotte arms, would either of them be accepted?
It would probably depend on how similar the New Sweden's arms were to
Vasa-Bernadotte arms. They wouldn't be identical to those arms because
with no Bernadottes on the throne the arms of the Principality of
Pontecorvo have no reason to be on Sweden's Arms.
But this is an extremely hypothetical situation.
Nick
Outis
wrote:
> Yes, but everyone in Scotland considers themselves to be royalty - or
> at least they consider that royalty is no better than they are. I
> certainly consider myself to be on a par with the Emperor of China.
I'm pretty sure that the entire population of China consider
themselves superior to the Emperor.
On Nov 26, 9:52 pm, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <nicholas...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It would probably depend on how similar the New Sweden's arms were to
> Vasa-Bernadotte arms. They wouldn't be identical to those arms because
> with no Bernadottes on the throne the arms of the Principality of
> Pontecorvo have no reason to be on Sweden's Arms.
>
> But this is an extremely hypothetical situation.
>
> Nick
Very hypothetical, of course, but the real question is simply: what is
the COA's attitude towards matriculation of former sovereign houses?
And what is their attitude when there is the possibility of a
succession dispute?
Graham Milne
> On Nov 25, 3:07 pm, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but everyone in Scotland considers themselves to be royalty - or
> > at least they consider that royalty is no better than they are. I
> > certainly consider myself to be on a par with the Emperor of China.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the entire population of China consider
> themselves superior to the Emperor.
>
Can they spot a joke at half a mile?
ArtyO
> > For example some random dude named Mr. Bernadete who insisted on Azure
> > Three Crowns Or, or a close variant thereof...
>
> > Nick
>
> Usurpation and demonstrable fraudulant intent is so blatantly obvious
> grounds for refusal that I think it goes without saying. I can't help
> but feel that the "wrong reason" must mean something else entirely.
Nick and Outis;
The usurpation of arms by many ancient families then later legitimized
is as old as the use of arms themselves. One clear case I
can think of right off hand is the Earl Spencer's ancestors,
exchanging their arms for the Despencer shield of which the variant is
used by the family to this day.
I would also like to point out that a Grant of arms from the CoA or
The Lyon's Court, or The CHA, no matter how much it resembles arms
from persons of the same famly name is still a new and 100%
legitimate grant. The only trouble I could see is someone assuming
arms and trying to pass them off as a Matriculation. In my own case I
received a grant of arms from the Canadian Heraldic Authority based
on the Gryf Clan Arms that a Chledowski Branch held from our original
Seat by Poznan. I could have also based them on the Boncza Clan arms
of Southern Galicia where my family moved to after 1825, but choose
not to.
Again I did not try and matriculate or assume, but received a new
legal grant of arms in Canada, so it is 100% legitimate.
A Mr. Bernadotte recieveing a CoA grant based on the Royal arms would
be distasteful I agree in many ways, but none the less fully
legitimate...
Capt Stephen Chledowski
nicho...@gmail.com
In this case I was actually thinking of a specific person: Randel
Massey of Dunham. He started out plain Randel Massey. Then he bought
land in Scotland, named it Dunham, and got a grant of arms nearly
identical to the Masseys of Dunham. Technically this was all
legitimate, but it's also pretty clear the Heraldic world would be
better off if the Lord Lyon had granted Randel Massey much different
arms then he did.
In Poland the laws of Arms are slightly different. Your use of the
arms is only a claim that you're in a large family. Every branch is
entitled to these arms. Massey of Dunham's arms are a claim he's from
a specific branch of a family he apparently does not belong to.
> A Mr. Bernadotte recieveing a CoA grant based on the Royal arms would
> be distasteful I agree in many ways, but none the less fully
> legitimate...
>
> Capt Stephen Chledowski
I didn't say it would be illegitimate. I said that the CoA could
easily use the "wrong reason" clause to justify refusing to grant the
arms.
Nick
Turenne
wrote:
>
> In this case I was actually thinking of a specific person: Randel
> Massey of Dunham. He started out plain Randel Massey. Then he bought
> land in Scotland, named it Dunham, and got a grant of arms nearly
> identical to the Masseys of Dunham. Technically this was all
> legitimate, but it's also pretty clear the Heraldic world would be
> better off if the Lord Lyon had granted Randel Massey much different
> arms then he did.
>
As someone who lives 1/2 mile of Dunham Massey, former estate of the
Masseys (de Masci) family and later the earls of Warrington and earls
of Stamford, I think that Massey's matriculation is a disgrace. Not
only is it a disgrace to purloin arms from a family that died out long
ago; it's also a disgrace to add the TD 'of Dunham' to his name.
Richard Lichten
Outis
> Nick and Outis;
> The usurpation of arms by many ancient families then later legitimized
> is as old as the use of arms themselves. One clear case I
> can think of right off hand is the Earl Spencer's ancestors,
> exchanging their arms for the Despencer shield of which the variant is
> used by the family to this day.
> I would also like to point out that a Grant of arms from the CoA or
> The Lyon's Court, or The CHA, no matter how much it resembles arms
> from persons of the same famly name is still a new and 100%
> legitimate grant. The only trouble I could see is someone assuming
> arms and trying to pass them off as a Matriculation. In my own case I
> received a grant of arms from the Canadian Heraldic Authority based
> on the Gryf Clan Arms that a Chledowski Branch held from our original
> Seat by Poznan. I could have also based them on the Boncza Clan arms
> of Southern Galicia where my family moved to after 1825, but choose
> not to.
> Again I did not try and matriculate or assume, but received a new
> legal grant of arms in Canada, so it is 100% legitimate.
Could you clarify:
Is there no difference at all, legallys speaking, between a grant and
a matriculation?
> A Mr. Bernadotte recieveing a CoA grant based on the Royal arms would
> be distasteful I agree in many ways, but none the less fully
> legitimate...
Is there any legal or otherwise mechanism for anyone to challenge a
grant? Is the CoA or Lyon legally empowered to "confiscate" already
granted arms?
Personally, I cannot understand the desire to usurp another's arms.
But I suppose that heraldry, as an ancient art, may tend to attract
those who are perversely drawn to notion and display of ancient-ness.
To the heraldically-uninformed, this display is anachronic and
meaningless bordering on ridiculous, but to the well-informed (like
the folks who frequent this newsgroup), these usurpers are frauds and
disgraces. So really, what's the point?
ArtyO
Ah Yes;
I believe I know the case you are speaking of.
Is it not true that the arms are identical and the Crest is the same
save the colours are reversed?
Perhaps Mr Massey had the best of intensions for grant and further
actions through the purchase of the Massey land (I don't know, felt
perhaps he should personally carry on the Torch of the extinct family)
This would be forgivable except for the fact that he does not belong
to that family line, so it seems to me more of a charade for those; as
you said, don't know any better.
The Chledowski family has an extinct line of the Baron's Chledowski
von Pfaffenhofen. It would be quite easy I suspect to have altered my
name and received a grant of their arms (Alteration of the Boncza
Clan)
But again, it was unthinkable and would have been a disgrace. At the
end of the day we must stand on our own merits. This brings us back to
the Kate Middleton grant...
Capt Stephen Chledowski
Turenne
> Ah Yes;
>
> I believe I know the case you are speaking of.
> Is it not true that the arms are identical and the Crest is the same
> save the colours are reversed?
> Perhaps Mr Massey had the best of intensions for grant and further
> actions through the purchase of the Massey land (I don't know, felt
> perhaps he should personally carry on the Torch of the extinct family)
> This would be forgivable except for the fact that he does not belong
> to that family line, so it seems to me more of a charade for those; as
> you said, don't know any better.
>
His arms are identical to those of Massey of Coddington except the
quartering of the crest is reversed.
Massey of Coddington (ancient English)
arms: Quarterly Gules and Or, in the first and fourth quarters three
fleur-de-lis Argent, a canton Argent for difference.
Crest: A demi-pegasus with wings displayed quarterly Or and Gules
Massey of Dunham (modern Scottish)
arms: Quarterly Gules and Or, in the first and fourth quarters three
fleur-de-lis Argent, a canton Argent for difference.
Crest: A demi-pegasus with wings displayed quarterly Gules and Or
The motto (Randle) 'Massey of Dunham' is the first motto to be
mentioned in Burke's GA under the surname Massey.
Major Massey purchased a few acres of foreshore on Orkney and called
it (officially on the land register) Dunham. he then had reason to be
granted arms from the Lord Lyon because, although he was not a UK
citizen, he was a Scottish landowner. He purchased enough land to
allow Lyon to acknowledge a territorial designation "of Dunham".
Lyon was extremely remiss in not checking Massey's bona fides further.
If he was a descendant of the ancient Massey family (he isn't), why
not obtain a grant of arms from Garter?
RL
Turenne
> On 2 Dec, 17:10, ArtyO <chledow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps Mr Massey had the best of intensions for grant and further
> > actions through the purchase of the Massey land (I don't know, felt
> > perhaps he should personally carry on the Torch of the extinct family)
The last Massey died in the late 15th century. She was of course an
heraldic heiress, so the Massey arms were quartered with those of
Booth (who inherited Dunham through her). He has as much right to
carry a torch for the Masseys as I have for the de Veres!
Richard
Zwartendÿk
Graham Milne
> No arms for Kate yet:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351839/Royal-wedding-How-Kat...
The problem is that this country is so full of chip-on-the-shoulders
moaners that it is likely that Prince William and Miss Middleton:
1. will not apply for any arms for Miss Middleton;
2. will not be granted a duchy;
3. will not go abroad for their honeymoon.
Will this satisfy the moaners? No. Answer? They should do all 3.
Joseph McMillan
> No arms for Kate yet:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351839/Royal-wedding-How-Kat...
If the cases of Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Rhys-Jones are precedents,
the arms won't be granted to Kate but to her father. And given how
rarely either of these ladies' arms--or for that matter Diana's or
Camilla's--have ever been seen in public, it seems to be a matter of
little practical difference whether Mr. Middleton receives arms or
not, at least until William eventually succeeds to the throne, at
which point the new queen will need a paternal coat for the fly half
of her standard ("banner" to heraldic pedants). In the mean time,
she'll fly the royal standard with a bordure ermine, just as Diana and
Sarah did.
Joseph McMillan
Zwartendÿk
> 3. will not go abroad for their honeymoon.
If they go abroad I hope they will go to a Commonwealth country! Even
better would of course be if they went to their new nominal duchy or
to some romantic spot in the UK, like the Hebrides!