Clan badges vs family crests??

[macwilkin]

Now me I'm going to assume a Coat of Arms for myself. I mean why not? When 98% of all CoA are self-assumed anyway right? Oh don't say a word about some has-been noble having to grant you your arms, for **edit** sake the Beatles were knighted for paying taxes.

Yes, but Paul McCartney's arms were granted through the College of Arms, which is the offical heraldic authority for England.

And I think your figure of 98% of arms being assumed is a wee bit high. Maybe in the United States, but certainly not in countries where there is a heraldic authority to grant them, and it is illegal to bear assumed arms.

Now as the Armitiger, I say that this is "Family Arms" available to all who are in my family. I know what you are saying, "You can't do that." But I just did. The Lord Lyon be damned. As the second son of a baron my brother Jerry gets Dad's CoA but I can use a variation of it.

Depends, really. In the USA, since there is no Heraldic authority, then yes, you can do what ever you want with your arms. But don't knock the Lord Lyon just because the rules of Scottish heraldry disagree with what you want to do. If you're not planning on going through Scotland for your arms, then don't worry about the Lord Lyon says. Heraldry on the Continent tends to be more "liberal" anyway in regards to the "rules" than UK Heraldry, and especially Scottish Heraldry.

In the USA, as I've mentioned earlier, there is no heraldic authority, so most heraldic experts now tend to agree that Americans may assume arms, although many choose to either seek grants of arms (via an ancestor) from one of the heraldic authorities in the British Isles, or to register their arms through the American College of Heraldry (unofficial) or a foreign source, like the Russian College of Heraldry (again, unofficial), South Africa or the Spanish Cronistas Reyes de Armas (Royal Heralds).

The British Royal Family each has their' own CoA but as ERII dies, hers could go to Prince Charles and so on to Prince William. But the Royal Family as a whole use the Quartered Richard's three lions & Louis' Flur de lis. So there is such a thing as a family CoA.

Again, yes and no. Remember that arms passed from generation to another (royal or no) have some sort of "mark of difference" to distinguish that has been passed down, so technically, it is not the same (family) CoA being passed down. In Scotland this is usually done through the "border" of the arms, whilst in England it is done through cadency marks.

A quote from an article on the Scottish Heraldry Society's web site is appropriate here:

According to the Scottish laws of heraldry, a younger son has no right to his father’s arms but must petition to matriculate from those of his father his own arms, which will be differenced from his father’s.
-- http://heraldry-scotland.co.uk/beginners.html

Officially "Arms" belong to one man and gets passed down to his first born son. (Prima Gentry) Often however you find "Arms" used as a "Device." The perfect example is the Scottish clan badge.

The so-called "clan badge" is actually the "Chief's Crest Badge", which is worn by members of the clan to display their loyalty to the Chief and the Clan. It is not the arms of the clan, just the crest of the Chief's arms, which is used as the badge. Some Chiefs have registered arms for their clan's society, such as the Campbells, but the arms belong to the chief, and his clansmen and clanswomen wear his/her badge.

Bottom line: if you want to "assume" arms, then go ahead. Many people do, especially in the United States. I would much rather see someone take the time and trouble to assume their own arms, rather than just depend on a "bucket shop" to provide them with one. In designing those arms, the person will most likely learn the customs and traditions of heraldry, which is always a good thing.

Regards,

Todd

[Sketraw]

The so-called "clan badge" is actually the "Chief's Crest Badge", which is worn by members of the clan to display their loyalty to the Chief and the Clan. It is not the arms of the clan, just the crest of the Chief's arms, which is used as the badge. Some Chiefs have registered arms for their clan's society, such as the Campbells, but the arms belong to the chief, and his clansmen and clanswomen wear his/her badge.

A wee correction Todd the 'Chiefs Crest Badge' is in a plain circle (usually accompanied by three feathers) The Clans folk's Badge is the 'Chiefs Crest' in a 'Strap and Buckle' to show allegiance to that chief. Even his heir apparent and all other siblings have to wear the 'crest' in a 'Strap & Buckle'

By Scots Heraldic law and Custom only the Chief/Armiger can use/wear 'his crest' outwith a circle all others should display the crest in a 'Strap & Buckle'

[macwilkin]

A wee correction Todd the 'Chiefs Crest Badge' is in a plain circle (usually accompanied by three feathers) The Clans folk's Badge is the 'Chiefs Crest' in a 'Strap and Buckle' to show allegiance to that chief. Even his heir apparent and all other siblings have to wear the 'crest' in a 'Strap & Buckle'

By Scots Heraldic law and Custom only the Chief/Armiger can use/wear 'his crest' outwith a circle all others should display the crest in a 'Strap & Buckle'

Mea culpa, mea culpa...

T.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

A wee correction Todd the 'Chiefs Crest Badge' is in a plain circle (usually accompanied by three feathers) The Clans folk's Badge is the 'Chiefs Crest' in a 'Strap and Buckle' to show allegiance to that chief. Even his heir apparent and all other siblings have to wear the 'crest' in a 'Strap & Buckle'

By Scots Heraldic law and Custom only the Chief/Armiger can use/wear 'his crest' outwith a circle all others should display the crest in a 'Strap & Buckle'

By courtesy all un-married children of an armiger are permitted to display their father's arms undifferenced until they reach their majority. At that time they must either abandon their paternal arms, sue out a differenced version of those arms, or sue out new arms altogether.

The only entitlement the child of an amiger has is the right to apply for a differenced version of the paternal arms. The heraldic authority having jurisdiction in the matter then determines two things: first, what if any, claim the child has to those arms, and second, what, if any, differences should be applied to those arms. The heraldic authority then issues a legal document which (1) confirms that the child is lawfully entitled to some form of use of the paternal arms, and (2) grants the use of those differenced or undifferenced arms to the child.

As to the use of a clansman's badge, like it or not, there is no automatic "right" to wear or display the same. In Scotland the crest, motto, and buckle and strap devise are technically and legally the property of the chief. As such he has the right to control its use, and to say who may--or may not-- wear the badge of a clansman. It has nothing to do with your surname, and everything to do with the good humour of your chief.

[macwilkin]

As to the use of a clansman's badge, like it or not, there is no automatic "right" to wear or display the same. In Scotland the crest, motto, and buckle and strap devise are technically and legally the property of the chief. As such he has the right to control its use, and to say who may--or may not-- wear the badge of a clansman. It has nothing to do with your surname, and everything to do with the good humour of your chief.

A very nice summary, Scott.

T.

[Sketraw]

By courtesy all un-married children of an armiger are permitted to display their father's arms undifferenced until they reach their majority. At that time they must either abandon their paternal arms, sue out a differenced version of those arms, or sue out new arms altogether.

Hi Scot, No, all siblings a re not entitled to display their fathers arms undifferented, the heir apparent has to display a three point label on the arms to show he is the heir apparent. All other male siblings use temporary cadency marks crescent, star, martlet etc 2nd 3rd and 4th sons for example until they leave the family home (usually regarded as 18) where upon they would have to matriculate arms from the father usually in the Scottish system with a bordure if they wished to use Scottish Arms, The only ones allowed to use the armigers arms without cadency but usually in a lozenge or oval is the armigers Wife and daughters.

The only entitlement the child of an amiger has is the right to apply for a differenced version of the paternal arms. The heraldic authority having jurisdiction in the matter then determines two things: first, what if any, claim the child has to those arms, and second, what, if any, differences should be applied to those arms. The heraldic authority then issues a legal document which (1) confirms that the child is lawfully entitled to some form of use of the paternal arms, and (2) grants the use of those differenced or undifferenced arms to the child.

Yes the siblings can if they wish apply for differenced arms of their maternal fathers usually, as I said previous, in a bordure. This does not apply to the Eldest Son as he inherits his father arms on his death, An eldest daughter can also inherit the fathers arms, however if she marries and adopts her husbands name she is no longer entitled, as she is no longer of the name. Ok if ther husband changes his name to hers or she keeps her own name in the marriage.

As to the use of a clansman's badge, like it or not, there is no automatic "right" to wear or display the same. In Scotland the crest, motto, and buckle and strap devise are technically and legally the property of the chief. As such he has the right to control its use, and to say who may--or may not-- wear the badge of a clansman. It has nothing to do with your surname, and everything to do with the good humour of your chief.

Yes correct, but the point I was trying to make was the chief wears his crest as is, or in a plain circle. All others wear it in a strap and buckle to show allegiance to the chief....yes it is up to the chief who can wear the crest in a strap and buckle and who does not, its his crest. See - Lyon Court Leaflet No2

[BoldHighlander]

See - Lyon Court Leaflet No2

Very interesting thread everyone & a very interesting leaflet. Thanks for sharing!

Regarding the leaflet, I have seen so many illustrations regarding clan symbols that its difficult (for me) to know what is correct.

I've seen one that showed the crest & wreath, alone, w/o strap & buckle, and with the motto in a scroll above it. Is there any kind of significance behind this particular illustration /display?

[Sketraw]

It could be someone is using it incorrectly as a badge rather than an indication of an allegiance to a clan.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

[/B]

Hi Scot, No, all siblings a re not entitled to display their fathers arms undifferented, the heir apparent has to display a three point label on the arms to show he is the heir apparent. All other male siblings use temporary cadency marks crescent, star, martlet etc 2nd 3rd and 4th sons for example until they leave the family home (usually regarded as 18) where upon they would have to matriculate arms from the father usually in the Scottish system with a bordure if they wished to use Scottish Arms, The only ones allowed to use the armigers arms without cadency but usually in a lozenge or oval is the armigers Wife and daughters.

Hi John--

In broad terms I would be in general agreement with what you've said-- you will note that I specifically didn't frame my comments in terms of the practices of the Scottish Office of Arms. That said, I would find it interesting to know when the custom referred to of using "cadency marks" for the generations in waiting was adopted? I don't recall Gayre of Gayre and Nigg making any reference to it in his Heraldic Cadency.

Given that under Scots Law an armiger may leave his undifferenced arms to whomsoever he pleases, within the terms of the desintation set forth in the letters patent of the original grant, it would seem to me that the assigning of lables, cadency marks, etc., to minor children is more "kitchen table heraldry" than the legal practice of the Lyon Court.

As I understand it since minor children do not (generally) have the same legal rights as those who enjoy their majority (for example entering into contracts or owning property without parental consent), I can see no reason for them to have-- or need-- any heraldic status at all during the lifetime of their armigerous parent. If that is the case then there would be no need to use "temporary" cadency marks -- wee Wullie could just as well mark his school trunk with his father's crest (technically the trunk is probably his father's property, "on loan") as paint a "temporary" COA on it.

As soon as Lord Lyon Blair's replacement is announced I'll have to ask.

Yes the siblings can if they wish apply for differenced arms of their maternal fathers usually, as I said previous, in a bordure. This does not apply to the Eldest Son as he inherits his father arms on his death, An eldest daughter can also inherit the fathers arms, however if she marries and adopts her husbands name she is no longer entitled, as she is no longer of the name. Ok if ther husband changes his name to hers or she keeps her own name in the marriage.

The Eldest Son only inherits by default. The Armiger may designate his successor in the undifferenced arms so long as that designated recipient is someone who falls within the "destination of arms" clause in the original grant. An example of this would be twin boys, the elder of whom is severely brain damaged at birth. In the specific case I'm thinking of, the elder twin was passed over and the undifferenced arms (along with the clan chiefship) were vested in the younger twin.

As regards daughters, well this is somewhat up in the air at the moment. Under EU law the first born child, if female, may have a substantive claim to the undifferenced arms unless her father chooses to designate a different successor. Even if that happens, the daughter could still sue for posession claiming that the parental decision was based on gender bias.

Yes correct, but the point I was trying to make was the chief wears his crest as is, or in a plain circle. All others wear it in a strap and buckle to show allegiance to the chief....yes it is up to the chief who he wears the crest in a strap and buckle and who does not its his crest. See - Lyon Court Leaflet No2

Absolutely bang on about the Chief's crest and clansmans badges, although this is a rather recent invention by the late Lord Lyon, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney. Before "Sir Tam" codified much of what we now take for gospel in his mega-tome The Clans Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands Chiefs and Chieftains regularly displayed their crests within the strap and buckle, feathers and all.

BTW-- I think your arms are quite smart. Am I correct in guessing that the heraldic painter is Romilly Squire?

Yours, Aye--
Rathdown

PS: what's the date on the Rachane letters patent? Is he one of Blair's "doomsday barons"?

[Sketraw]

Scott, I think in general we are batting with the same 'bat and ball' here, some slight variance of views but in general the same.

No I did the electronic rendition myself, getting Romilly to put brush to paper nowadays is tuff which is a shame as he is a wonderful heraldic artist. I do hope George Way of Plean is the next LL but we will have to wait and see.

The one painting of my arms I have had done was by Romanian heraldic artist Tudor Tiron Click Here for Large Image