Scottish heraldic flavor

[Mr. MacDougall]

Horses for courses and all that, sir. You are free to disagree, but why mock those who do?

I think "mock" is a misinterpretation of my purpose, sir. I am concerned that there are people who will feel that arms are in some way lesser because they have not been granted them by some armorial authority. Indeed, for a time, there was a "heraldry board" here in America which made money off the practice of selling "grants of arms" in the United States. That there was no requirement for such a grant in order to bear arms, nor authority for the board to grand them, was entirely ignored by these unscrupulous people.

The fact is that Heraldry was designed so that people in armor could be distinguished from one another, and identified. America is a nation of Yeomen, and our military goes to great lengths to homogenize its soldiers, so heraldry no longer holds that place in our society. I ask, therefore... does it really matter to Americans if their right to be identified by such a logo is recognized in South Africa?

If you are concerned that some other might bear the same arms as yourself, trademark the device! That action does have legal status within American law.

Of course, if you live in a country which does codify heraldry within the law, by all means, seek a grant of arms from the appropriate authority. But doing so in a country other than that of your residence gets you little except the right to bear those arms in the country which issues the grant.

[macwilkin]

I think "mock" is a misinterpretation of my purpose, sir. I am concerned that there are people who will feel that arms are in some way lesser because they have not been granted them by some armorial authority. Indeed, for a time, there was a "heraldry board" here in America which made money off the practice of selling "grants of arms" in the United States. That there was no requirement for such a grant in order to bear arms, nor authority for the board to grand them, was entirely ignored by these unscrupulous people.

The fact is that Heraldry was designed so that people in armor could be distinguished from one another, and identified. America is a nation of Yeomen, and our military goes to great lengths to homogenize its soldiers, so heraldry no longer holds that place in our society. I ask, therefore... does it really matter to Americans if their right to be identified by such a logo is recognized in South Africa?

If you are concerned that some other might bear the same arms as yourself, trademark the device! That action does have legal status within American law.

Of course, if you live in a country which does codify heraldry within the law, by all means, seek a grant of arms from the appropriate authority. But doing so in a country other than that of your residence gets you little except the right to bear those arms in the country which issues the grant.

I strongly disagree that heraldry holds no place in American society, and so would General Washington, as he maintained that the gentle science of heraldry was completely compatible with the American Republic -- and he frequently made use of it. If what you said was true, there would be no American civic arms, no military heraldry, etc.

For example, heraldry is alive & well in the US military:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/

American soldiers still bear the trappings of heraldry on Distinctive Unit Insignia to this very day, and is used to teach unit history and pride.

And again, different horses for courses -- it's none of your business if an American citizen registers their arms with overseas heraldic authorities -- your tone in this post is just a wee bit condescending towards those who choose to do so, which is ironic given your statements about a "nation of yeoman". As free citizens, we have a right to associate and/or spend our money in what ever way we choose (provided it is not detrimental to the Republic) -- you may not find it of value, but others may.

And by the way, I would rather see Americans "assume" arms than "usurp" them thanks to the ubiquitous "bucket shops" that peddle "family crests" to unsuspecting individuals.

T.

[Mr. MacDougall]

And by the way, I would rather see Americans "assume" arms than "usurp" them thanks to the ubiquitous "bucket shops" that peddle "family crests" to unsuspecting individuals.

And there we find ourselves in perfect agreement.

[Lachlan09]

Well said Cajun !

[Chas]

The United States has no armorial authority, and frankly, an American citizen seeking a grant of arms from another country is a bit silly and pretentious, in my view. If you want arms, adopt them.

(and yes, I'm also known as Björn the Navigator, Black Boar Herald of the Barony of Tir Ysgithr, so I do know about that armorial authority, but so does anyone to whom it applies).

This is not correct. There is an Heraldic Authority in the United States of America. It is just not available to you. It is as Todd has pointed out:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/

I fail to understand the thrust of your post. You state that there is no authority and then in the second paragraph you state that you are part of an invented authority.

If you want arms, adopt them.

So are you telling us that all members of the SCA get their arms granted automatically? Without going through their College of Heralds? If that be the case, then what is the need for the Black Boar Herald of the Barony of Tir Ysgithr.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the free-for-all of self assumption or the regulation of grants.

Regards

Chas

[macwilkin]

Just one more OT point: whilst the US has no heraldic authority granting arms (more's the pity), we do have a body to register arms with: the New England Historical & Genealogical Society's Committee on Heraldry, which maintains a rather large register of American arms, many of them dating to colonial times.

T.

[Chas]

I think "mock" is a misinterpretation of my purpose, sir. I am concerned that there are people who will feel that arms are in some way lesser because they have not been granted them by some armorial authority. Indeed, for a time, there was a "heraldry board" here in America which made money off the practice of selling "grants of arms" in the United States. That there was no requirement for such a grant in order to bear arms, nor authority for the board to grand them, was entirely ignored by these unscrupulous people.

The fact is that Heraldry was designed so that people in armor could be distinguished from one another, and identified. America is a nation of Yeomen, and our military goes to great lengths to homogenize its soldiers, so heraldry no longer holds that place in our society. I ask, therefore... does it really matter to Americans if their right to be identified by such a logo is recognized in South Africa?

If you are concerned that some other might bear the same arms as yourself, trademark the device! That action does have legal status within American law.

Of course, if you live in a country which does codify heraldry within the law, by all means, seek a grant of arms from the appropriate authority. But doing so in a country other than that of your residence gets you little except the right to bear those arms in the country which issues the grant.

I am concerned that there are people who will feel that arms are in some way lesser because they have not been granted them by some armorial authority.

If people feel that way, they would be quite justified. For the simple reason that the arms are lesser. That is how society, in all its aspects, has worked for hundreds of years. Why are children tested in school? Against their peers? Why do young people go through apprenticeships and training? In College, why is there peer review? In the Military, who trains the new recruit? Some random bum off the street or a man who has already passed the test?

In all aspects and walks of life we value the trained, the qualified, the person or thing that has made the grade, met the standard, hit the target.

If any man says that he doesn't care that the surgeon operating on him has a poor survival rate - that man is a liar. When your newborn child is struggling for breath and is turning blue, it is the best pediatrician that you want, not Joe the Plumber. As good as Joe is at sorting out your domestic effluent problem, he is not the man to be poking and prodding your newborn.

And that is what it comes down to. Assumed arms have not been through the testing process, they have not been proved in a collegiate atmosphere nor have they been exposed to review and if necessary ridicule. For these reasons they will always be 'lesser'.

The fact is that Heraldry was designed so that people in armor could be distinguished from one another, and identified. America is a nation of Yeomen, and our military goes to great lengths to homogenize its soldiers, so heraldry no longer holds that place in our society.

NO. Historically, heraldry was not for the soldiers it was for the officers, who to this day wear rank badges. The man who raised the fighting unit would have his arms on a flag so that the troops could rally round it; so in the heat of battle they would know who they were fighting and who was on their side. Are you seriously suggesting that at some time in history every foot soldier had his own flag? When do you think this happened? And where?

I ask, therefore... does it really matter to Americans if their right to be identified by such a logo is recognized in South Africa?

For your answer, you need only ask the Americans who have log-jammed the Bureau of Heraldry of South Africa. So much so, that the current waiting time is just under 5 years. If it doesn't matter to them why are they willing to wait that length of time for some thing that is "worthless"?

When he was alive the Cronista King of Arms for Spain would grant arms to those that hold land (or were born in land) that was once held by Spain. Even though he is dead, he still receives petitions for grants of arms from Americans who are leasing land in the South purely so that they can show that they are holding land. Why did they do that and why are they still doing it today? Could it be that they perceive some value?

Why are they flocking to the Russian College of Heraldry? Are they all Communists? I think not.

The College of Arms will not make grants to Americans, but they will make 'devisals'. Part of the deal is that they pay for the Herald to fly out to the American's home town and present the devisal to him in a public ceremony. This process is open to all Americans, both private and institutions. It is not cheap; return air fare, insurance for the devisal and insurance for the Herald's court dress, hotel and hospitality, the cost of the presentation - it all adds up. But still there is a two year waiting list. Why is that? There must be some value there.

If you are concerned that some other might bear the same arms as yourself, trademark the device! That action does have legal status within American law.

This unfortunately is a fantasy. Take the arms of Scrope - Azure a bend Or. Trademark legislation will only protect one graphic representation, not all shades, tints and hues of the blue and gold or for that matter, yellow. The shape of the shield changes the picture - no longer the same. A wider or narrower bend and the picture is changed again. Should a person wish to copyright the blazon, all well and good. So the words "Azure a bend Or" are copyrighted - not the depiction of the shield they describe. That connection does not work in any country without an heraldic authority. A man would have to trademark all the possible shield shapes and all the possible bend widths and all the possible changes of colour of all the possible combinations there of, to ensure that he had protection. But that is not possible, so he would not be protected.

This has already been tested in law, in the United States. If memory serves, it was the Johnson Family Association verses the Johnson Family Association. Both sides claiming that they had the right to the sole use of the arms. The court's ruling was that there was no protection.

except the right to bear those arms in the country which issues the grant

Please believe me - I have the right to bear my arms ANYWHERE I so choose.

Regards and with the Compliments of the Season at this Christmastide

Chas

Gules fretty Argent on a chief wavy Bleu Celest a rising sun radiant Or.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Chas is, of course, correct.

[kiltedsawyer]

What could be more silly than buying a coat of arms, a symbol, an icon? What could be more self aggrandizing? How absurdly pompous. How elitist.

Officers in the military EARN their rank, and wear the insignia that denotes this accomplisment. It is the accomplisment, not the insignia that commands respect. If you want a trophy or an award to show that you have some worth, do something for someone besides yourself. EARN IT. Want a symbol to show that you were on this earth? Buy a tombstone. I enjoy the romanticism of the past as much as the next guy, but give it a rest.

If you are the descendent of an armiger, good for you. Want to keep the family tradition alive? Good for you. But otherwise, I cannot see the value in some pretentious icon bought and paid for and going all the way back to 1986 and containing an arbitrary assemblage of romantic symbols. You know, if this arms thing really catches on, WalMart will be selling them.

“Do well and you will have no need of ancestors.”

Seasons Greetings,
David

[macwilkin]

David,

Respectfully: aren't you being a bit elitist yourself? If you don't see a need for heraldry & coats-of-arms, then fine. As a free citizen, you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. But why the need to make such judgmental comments?

Reverse snobbery is still snobbery, no matter how egalitarian it tries to portray itself.

I'll gladly respect your views if you return the same.

T.