Getting a COA registered

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Scott: these are often said to be the first arms known to have been hereditary, but I have never seen any proof that they were granted by the king. Evidence?

Because it's on my desk I'd refer you to THE NATURE OF ARMS by Lt. Col. Robert Gayre of Gayre and Nigg, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1961 (no isbn). This is a passing reference, and I believe there is a more detailed account in Wagner's book, HERALDRY IN ENGLAND, and possibly in Cussans or Planche; I'll see what I can dig out in the morning and get back to you. Please note that I've said "given/granted" as I wished to make a clear distinction between modern heraldic practice and how things were done in the 12th century. I very much doubt letters patent were drawn up for the occasion, but then it is obvious the Geoffrey's arms were borne "by and with the authority of the king", much like the wording on today's letters patent.

I'm aware of no cases in Italy and would be interested in specifics.

There have been several suits over the inappropriate use of coats of arms on wine labels, but the one I was thinking of involved the use of the Savoy arms by a cadet branch of the Italian Royal Family. The courts found in favor of the Duke of Savoy, and substantial damages were awarded. I believe the case is currently under appeal.

There are French cases I'm aware of, and I understand there are German ones as well. The most recent cases I've found (which are not very recent) treat arms not as property but as "marks of cognizance, supplementary to the family name to which they are indissolubly linked" (Paris Court of Appeals, 20 Dec 1949). The various German heraldry societies cite the chapter of the Civil Code on names and identity as the basis for protection of arms under German law.

But in neither country do arms have to be granted to be protected; they merely have to be publicly used. The side that proves first public use is deemed to have the superior right to the arms.

True, but given that very few families possess the original grant, this is merely a pragmatic approach to the problem. He who could produce the grant would be the undisputed owner.

The statement that EU law protects grants of all heraldic authorities across Europe is a new one on me. There are very few true granting authorities in the EU, and the English one can't even protect its own grants (the Court of Chivalry hasn't sat since 1954, and it doesn't take very deep penetration to realize that the Manchester case was a put-up job. I've looked, and have never found a single instance of the EU doing what you say.

That's probably because no one has brought a case before the EU courts.

As I recall, round about 1999, the CHI was advised by the State Chief Solicitor that due to EU copyright law as it related to intellectual property (such as the design elements of a coat of arms) these matters could end up being dealt with in Madrid. While I'm not aware of any cases going before the EU court in Madrid, it would seem to be the court of competent jurisdiction if a case were to surface sometime in the future.

I'd say not; I'd say it reflects a stronger understanding of the history of heraldry and a more cosmopolitan view of its practice. All arms were originally assumed. All the classic writers on heraldic law outside Britain hold assumed arms to be just as valid and "genuine" as granted ones, and British writers said the same thing until the late Tudor period.

It's quite true that in the very first instance all arms were adopted, however, by the 14th century arms are no longer being adopted, willy-nilly, as it were.

"While it is clear that nobility preceded heraldry, the possession of arms was located, at first, in the higher nobility and only later penetrated downwards to comprehend the whole of the noblesse." (Gayre, THE NATURE OF ARMS)

Now Gayre is writing about the 12th and 13th century, when arms were in their infancy. What's telling, and both Gayre and Wagner give examples, is that by the end of, say, the 14th century this practice had pretty much ground to a halt; the arms of nobles had become truly hereditary, and such newly enobled individuals were generally receiving arms from their feudal superior. In "The Book of St. Albans" (1473) Nicholas Upton writes of assumed arms

"But yet they be not of so great a dignity and authority as those arms the which are granted day by day by the authority of a prince or of a lord." (emphasis added)

Although arms were (to a lesser degree) still being adopted, the king was regularly (ie: "day by day") granting arms to nobles. Clearly the adoption of arms was on it's way out.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say arms ceased to be adopted by 1607 and that from that time forward the only way to obtain arms was by a grant. I would contend that no matter what the practice may have been in 1307 or 1607, times have changed, and if someone in the USA wants a coat of arms then they should simply apply for a grant. Now if there was no earthly way to obtain a grant then fine, bring back the practice of adopting arms.

Now I personally don't care if someone adopts arms or not; it's no skin off my nose. And I don't particularly care for those folks who clannishly feel that their grant of arms makes them in someway superior to non-armigers. But I do think that those folks who wish to bear a coat of arms should think through their reasons for adopting arms rather than seeking a grant. My real concern is that people will adopt "pleasing designs" rather than stick to the basic reason heraldry exists: as a method of identifying and uniting extended families.

Sure, but in a country that didn't require a license to drive, your driver's license from some other country would be just a piece of paper. In most every country except Scotland and arguably England, you don't need a license to bear arms.

I guess it could be argued that a fish is going to taste the same whether or not you had a license to catch it. Now if you have a fishing license you can take it with you where ever you go, even if you go to someplace that doesn't require a license to fish, just in case someone wants to see it.

Letters Patent are in pretty much the same boat as that fish. As you've pointed out, it's a license to bear arms; and it's probably worth having, just in case somebody wants to see it.