grants to ancestors?
Anton Sherwood
I'm sure I've seen someone here - or maybe sometwo or somethree - say
they got a grant of arms for their late father or grandfather, to be
borne with due differences by his descendants including the petitioner.
Was I dreaming? I'm having a quarrel with another Wikipedia
contributor who is determined that there must be an article devoted to
explaining that There Is No Such Thing As A Family Crest, and I brought
up that (possibly imaginary) practice as a minor point.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
"How'd ya like to climb this high *without* no mountain?" --Porky Pine
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> I'm sure I've seen someone here - or maybe sometwo or somethree - say
> they got a grant of arms for their late father or grandfather, to be
> borne with due differences by his descendants including the petitioner.
> Was I dreaming? I'm having a quarrel with another Wikipedia
> contributor who is determined that there must be an article devoted to
> explaining that There Is No Such Thing As A Family Crest, and I brought
> up that (possibly imaginary) practice as a minor point.
I presume you are talking about English arms, not Scottish where, of
course, differencing is enshrined in some charter to the Lord Lyon.
We have discussed it within the last year or three and apparently some
(many? all?) modern English grants include a clause about
due differences. This never used to be the case and I have clear
evidence that older practices were indubitably that arms of a family
were recognised as such. And no-one knows when the heralds changed
their practice, let alone what rule was passed to cause this change.
We await enlightenment!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Andrew Chaplin
news:ba9411f...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> In message of 20 Feb, Anton Sherwood <bro...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure I've seen someone here - or maybe sometwo or somethree -
say
> > they got a grant of arms for their late father or grandfather, to
be
> > borne with due differences by his descendants including the
petitioner.
> > Was I dreaming? I'm having a quarrel with another Wikipedia
> > contributor who is determined that there must be an article
devoted to
> > explaining that There Is No Such Thing As A Family Crest, and I
brought
> > up that (possibly imaginary) practice as a minor point.
>
> I presume you are talking about English arms, not Scottish where, of
> course, differencing is enshrined in some charter to the Lord Lyon.
>
> We have discussed it within the last year or three and apparently
some
> (many? all?) modern English grants include a clause about
> due differences. This never used to be the case and I have clear
> evidence that older practices were indubitably that arms of a family
> were recognised as such. And no-one knows when the heralds changed
> their practice, let alone what rule was passed to cause this change.
The grant may be pretty vague. My father's reads, "the whole to be
borne and used forever hereafter by him the said PHILIP ALFRED CONRAD
CHAPLIN and by his descendants according to the Laws of Arms...." That
leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially where the descendants move
into other jurisdictions, some of which may have no heralds, let alone
laws of arms.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Ryan McGuire
be granted posthumously. While it might vary from one heraldic
authority to the next, there is little doubt that it HAS happened.
This site:
http://www.geocities.com/bona_spes/RhodesU.html
describing the arms of Rhodes university, states that the lion and
thistle on those arms come from the arms granted posthumously to Cecil
John Rhodes. I assume that such arms would be inherited by his heirs
like any other arms.
The last paragraph on this page:
http://www.hagsoc.org.au/index.php?page=city_arms
mentions arms granted posthumously to James Cook in 1785.
Those are just two reference I could find through Google. However I'm
sure I've seen it before. The possibilty of a posthumous grant of arms
has stuck with me because I have a wild plan to do that some time.
Since my paternal line came from Ireland back in the late 1800s, I'd
have to believe that I got that info from the site for the Office of
the Chief Herald of Ireland. But I can't find either a statement or
example to that effect now.
As for due differences...
It's my understanding that once the original grantee passes away, the
eldest heir may assume the undifferenced arms.
But would posthumously granted arms count as family arms. NO! Any one
coat of arms should properly be born by only one person at any one
time. In my case, for instance, if my (elder) brother and I get a
grant for our late father, my brother, as the eldest heir, would assume
the undifferenced arms while I would need to difference mine. We
wouldn't both get to use dear old dad's. As the second son, I might
take whatever we register for my father and difference with the
traditional crescent. If I don't have any kids, I might reasonably
leave those differenced arms to my brother's second heir.
But you mention a family CREST. Crests (the element of a complete
achievement that's often shown atop the helm, etc. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coatarms-labld.png) don't need to be
unique. It's my understanding that heirs are welcome to use their
parents' crest. There's no requirement one way or the other.
Ryan
Sean J Murphy
> But if I understand correctly, your main question is whether arms can
> be granted posthumously. While it might vary from one heraldic
> authority to the next, there is little doubt that it HAS happened.
> The possibilty of a posthumous grant of arms
> has stuck with me because I have a wild plan to do that some time.
> Since my paternal line came from Ireland back in the late 1800s, I'd
> have to believe that I got that info from the site for the Office of
> the Chief Herald of Ireland. But I can't find either a statement or
> example to that effect now.
>
The website of the Office of the Chief Herald currently states: 'A grant
of arms made to an individual extends to his or her descendants of the
name, not to a family as such.' (http://www.nli.ie/new_office.htm)
Indeed posthumous grants of arms have been made in the past, and the
current Chief Herald is a beneficiary. But then there were lots of other
practices now discontinued, which I need hardly elaborate.
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/
StephenP
As I understand things in English heraldry the grant is made to a
living person but the descent of Arms can be from a deceased person to
siblings (or cousins?). However, the deceased person must have been
eligible for Arms in their own right had they applied for them in their
life time. Thus my father could have petitioned so that his siblings
would benefit from his grant because his father would certainly have
been deemed a "gentleman". Whilst my maternal grandfather would
most likely have qualified for Arms by dint of being a Commander, Royal
Navy. It would appear that his arms would not have extended to his
siblings because his father had been a Chief Petty Officer and so not a
"gentleman".
The current Scottish practice is that it is possible to petition for
Arms on behalf of a deceased ancestor so long as he would have fallen
under Lord Lyon's jurisdiction. What I am not sure about is whether
or not the Lord Lyon applies the same criteria to the deceased's
petition as he would to the living? Is it possible of a perfectly
honourable gentleman outwith Scotland to be denied Arms because his
ancestor was a scoundrel (or of humble stock)? Or alternatively, a
deceased scoundrel is granted Arms because his descendant is worthy
individual?
mj...@btinternet.com
StephenP schrieb:
> There certainly seems to be some variation in what is/was acceptable.
> As I understand things in English heraldry the grant is made to a
> living person but the descent of Arms can be from a deceased person to
> siblings (or cousins?). However, the deceased person must have been
> eligible for Arms in their own right had they applied for them in their
> life time.
Indeed; the grant in respect of a deceased person who would have been
entitled to receive a grant had he petitioned during his lifetime is
styled as a grant 'suitable to be erected on a memorial' to the
deceased - I can look up the exact wording if anyone wishes.
Provided there is an original eligibility, and a proven legitimate
descent entailing heraldic heirship, there is no time limit placed on
the number of years that may elapse between death and grant. When
researching some ancestors of my grandmother about ten years ago, it
was discovered that the arms they had used for centuries were not born
legally, but even though the progenitor who had the original
entitlement (he had a civic commission as an English alderman) had died
in the 1630s, Garter was prepared (after some hesitation, probably to
have a chapter discussion) to issue a memorial grant on the basis of
the relevant proofs and fees being submitted.
MA-R
StephenP
>entitled to receive a grant had he petitioned during his lifetime is
>styled as a grant 'suitable to be erected on a memorial' to the
>deceased - I can look up the exact wording if anyone wishes.
Yes please.
mj...@btinternet.com
StephenP schrieb:
"... the granting and assigning of such Arms and Crest as are deemed
suitable to be placed upon a monument or otherwise displayed to the
memory of his late father... and to be borne and used by him [ie the
petitioner] and his descendants and by ther other descendants of his
said late father with their due and proper differences, the same
according to the Law of Arms."
Furthermore, as stated by Somerset Herald in correspondence with me (5
July 1994) the position of the College is that one "can petition to
place arms on a monument to an ancestor and to bear those arms
[including] as a quartering if that ancestor would himself have been
eligible for a grant." Such grants occur frequently.
On 8 January 1996 he advised that "I have spoken to the new Garter King
of Arms about the possibility of a grant to your ancestor William
Herne, who died in 1634 [whose family had been bearing arms without
apparent authority] and who was an alderman of Basingstoke. Garter
says that before he would consider making such a grant a pedigree would
have to be registered showing your descent from an heiress of this
person, as otherwise you would not be one of his representatives and
fees would also be charged on a basis similar to an extension of
limitations which would be in addition to the basic fee for arms." I
decided not to take this further, although I hold the necessary proofs,
because of the enormous cost attached to what would have been, in
essence, an exercise in vanity - but it seems it would have been
possible.
(With apologies for taking valuable bandwidth away from the current
effort to post one million identical tedious posts on the subject of
English feudal baronies.)
MA-R
StephenP
(Heaven forbid that someone should make a post about heraldry here!
Perhaps I should apologise as it appears I have been feeding a troll by
asking a simple question.)
Barrassie
ancestor of an Australian.
The ancestor had been found guilty of stealing a sheep (to feed his
family in the winter), he was sent to Australia as a convict, in fact
he is called William the convict by his many descendants. William
served his term woprked hard and aquired a farm. He therefore became
'virtuous and well deserving'.
A number of his male descendants have been honoured by Her Majesty and
a number of them attended her coronation as part of the Australian
military representation. There was interest shown for a grant but
unfotunately this has not yet been taken up. In my opinion the nearest
one can get to a 'pardon'!