Scottish heraldic flavor

[cessna152towser]

Well said, Chas, for once you and I and MoR all agree about something.

[davidlpope]

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.

I think that you're wrongly assuming that there is some amount of "respect" or "self-worth" tied to arms that is given to/desired by those who possess/desire arms as a result of those arms. This, I think, is different from accomplishing something that most people rightfully have respect for, such as graduating from Recruit Training/ Officer Candidate School.

Even with that notable distinction in mind, your example does make sense in certain respects. Only those candidates who meet the rigors of OCS are commissioned. When I was at OCS some candidates were disqualified for situations beyond their control, e.g. breaking a leg. It didn't make them "lessor beings" (i.e. there isn't necessarily any moral judgment involved) for not qualifying. Similarly, it is my understanding that the purpose of established heraldic authorities is to ensure that only those who have met certain requirements are granted arms. I don't think possessing/desiring arms relates to one's "worth". To me it relates to one's interests.

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

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.

I really don't understand your strong condemnation of aquiring arms as silly or pompous. Wouldn't it be enough to say you don't see the value in such an interest and stop at that? I don't see the value in owning a Harley Davidson or a Porsche, but I don't think it's appropriate to make a moral judgment on those who do.

How elitist.

By definition, though, I think one can safely say that the practice is elitist (again, I use this term as descriptive, not implying any negative moral judgment) in that the practice isn't as simple as "buying a coat of arms". If that were the case, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry could be an armiger. Whether you think the restricted nature of arms is a good thing or a bad thing, history shows us that there have always been societal distinctions: "Citizens" of Rome met certain requirements. Before the word "Gentleman" became a term of politeness, it was descriptive of someone of a particular social caste. Before "esquire" was grabbed by American attorneys it actually denoted one's place in a social order. Arms are simply another distinction of this type.

Cordially,


David

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Sorry Dave, but with all due respect, your posting sounds like a proletariat rant against those who may have something, or aspire to something, you don't have, and that you rather resent them for holding on to values which you seem to be quite willing to cast away. Your tone, and word choice really does seem to reflect huge disrespect, cloaked in what is, in my opinion, nothing more than specious egalitarianism.

Like Todd said, "reverse snobbery is still snobbery, no matter how egalitarian it tries to portray itself".

[Chas]

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

Oh dear, so much petulance, so much foot stamping. Where to begin?

I did write a vast amount, a great tsunami of words, breaking down all that you have written, but in the end I think that this will suffice.

You posting is rude and is personally insulting, so you will not take any offence if I answer in kind.

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

You obviously have no ancestors of which you are proud and with your attitude let us all hope that you are not creating any descendants.

Regards

Chas

[Zardoz]

"Do well and you will have no need of ancestors" is actually a quote by Voltaire about the philosophical ideas of John Locke that questioned both the divine rights of Kings and the authority of the state.

PS... I only post this info to indicate where the quote in Kiltedsawyer's post came from. I don't really have a dog in this hunt.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Lord Lyon can and does make what are known as posthumous grants of arms to the ancestors of Americans who were either born or were living in America prior to the Revolutionary War.

This is a common misconception on two counts. First, there is no such thing as a "posthumous" grants. Grants can only be made to living people, not imposed on the dead. Second, while the grant is based on descent from an ancestor born in Scotland, there is no "time limit" imposed. If your grandfather was born in Scotland in 1900, moved to the USA in 1925, and died in 1972, and you were born there in 1980, you could petition Lyon for a grant based on your grandfather's Scottish birth. These grants are in the nature of a "family memorial" and all descendants of the Scottish ancestor mentioned in the grant are entitled to sue out arms based on their genealogical relationship to all of the other known descendants of the ancestor.

What is required in each instance is legal proof of your exact relationship to the Scottish born ancestor. Sometimes this is very difficult to do, especially in North America when a family may have been settled there for several centuries, and record keeping may not have been as precise as some would like. That said, most heraldic authorities will accept "memorial proof"-- things like tombstones and family bibles, as well as the "balance of probability", if that is within legal reasoning.

If one simply can't prove a Scottish ancestor, then there is no point in beating your head against the wall. In Canada the option is to seek out arms from the Chief Herald of Canada, and in the United States (and elsewhere) to apply to the Bureau of Heraldry in South Africa.

Aside from their genealogical and emotional value, there is nothing special about Scottish arms-- they have no greater (or lesser) standing than the substantive arms granted by any other governmental body. Honorary arms (which include devisals of arms), or those which are "self-assumed", on the other hand, have no such standing and are regarded merely as examples (both good and bad) of heraldic designs.

[EagleJCS]

MOR,
I believe what The Deil's Child was referring to when he said "posthumous grant" - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - was the grant of arms to "a Scottish ancestor settled in the United States of America prior to 1783" as referred to here.(www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-8.pdf)

That leaflet, and a couple of others on the SSA website, offer information - also provided on Lord Lyon's website here http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/f...OfPetition.pdf - on matriculating a grant of arms for oneself once an ancestor's arms have been determined (either by a grant "for and in memory of" said ancestor, or through research to determine the original grant).

It may be that the current Lord Lyon won't grant arms "for and in memory of" long-deceased ancestors. That would be for him to clarify. If so, the information on the various Scottish Arms/Heritage websites will need to be updated.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MOR,
I believe what The Deil's Child was referring to when he said "posthumous grant" - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - was the grant of arms to "a Scottish ancestor settled in the United States of America prior to 1783" as referred to here.(www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-8.pdf)

That leaflet, and a couple of others on the SSA website, offer information - also provided on Lord Lyon's website here http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/f...OfPetition.pdf - on matriculating a grant of arms for oneself once an ancestor's arms have been determined (either by a grant "for and in memory of" said ancestor, or through research to determine the original grant).

It may be that the current Lord Lyon won't grant arms "for and in memory of" long-deceased ancestors. That would be for him to clarify. If so, the information on the various Scottish Arms/Heritage websites will need to be updated.

We are looking at two different sets of circumstances. In the case of (b) "a deceased Scottish ancestor" there is no time limit as to when that ancestor must have arrived in the USA. This covers the vast majority of people in the USA whose Scottish ancestor would have arrived after American independence. In the case of (c) "a Scottish ancestor who settled in America prior to 1783" this covers those persons with typically Scottish surnames whose ancestors arrived prior to independence. In this instance it can sometimes be virtually impossible to provide the stringent proofs required by Lyon. For that reason many descendants of early Scottish settlers may wish to apply to the Bureau of Heraldry in South Africa.

(Now I have to be perfectly honest here and say that for the life of me I can not figure out any substantive difference between (b) and (c) unless it is to allow Lyon a bit of wiggle room when dealing with some older records in North America; to me, save for the date, both sets of circumstances seem more-or-less identical.)

I stand ready to be corrected on this, but it is my understanding that the phrase "for and in memory of" merely establishes the fact that the letters patent present a memorial of the petitioners ancestors, which establish his right to appear before the Court of the Lord Lyon when suing out arms. As far as I know it is still the practice of the Lord Lyon to grant arms under this clause.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

If it is a common misconception, then it is one perpetuated by the office of Lyon Court itself, as I was told that I could apply for a grant of arms to my (long since dead) ancestor who was a subject of the British Crown, and have the arms then matriculated down to me. It was never suggested by the office of Lyon Court that I (as a 7th generation American citizen) could simply apply for a grant of arms to myself by proving my descent from my Scottish ancestor. The grant would have to be first made to the ancestor who was a subject of the British Crown, and then I would have to be matriculated as his descendant - a process that could be done in a single document, provided I was able to come up with sufficent proof (i.e. historical documentation that each intervening generation was the direct descendant of the previous generation spelled out clearly in no uncertain terms - such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, or other legally recognized documents).

This is the same level of proof required of someone applying for arms based on the fact that his grandfather (or father) was born in Scotland. The only difference is the amount of paperwork required with each additional generation. I can sympathize with your frustration at not being able to connect all the dots. But again, let me suggest that if a substantive coat of arms is of importance to you, that you consider applying to the South African Bureau of Heraldry.

[Lachlan09]

May I ask in general, in this day and age, what purpose is there in ordinary individuals getting their own coat of arms ?