Getting a COA registered

[Joseph McMillan]

Unless one wants to really parse the meaning of "granted" then I think it best to roll back that 15th century date to about 1127 when Henry I of England gave/granted Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, a shield charged with three gold lions, the same arms becoming exclusively hereditary within the Plantagenet line.

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?

Actually, coats of arms are vigorously defended as personal property, all the time, in both present day France and Italy. With the coming of EU law, the grants of all heraldic authorities were given equal protection throughout the EU under a doctrine similar to the "full faith and value" doctrine of US law; so, if Mr. McTavish finds his arms being applied to tins of sardines in Portugal he can sue to stop the practice.

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

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 like saying because someone wants champagne from France rather than sparking wine from up-state New York their self worth deserves some introspection. Some people just prefer "the genuine article"; to decry this seems to be rather mean spirited.

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.

Europe is a pretty big place, and the laws or rules regulating arms vary widely; to suggest otherwise is to follow a very Anglo-centric path.

As you say.

Substantive documents-- those issued with lawful authority-- always are regarded as the "real deal"; if anyone doubts this, they should try designing their own driving license, or vehicle registration documents and then set off on a cross country journey.

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.

[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.

[SlackerDrummer]

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?

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.

When in making your case you use the same terms that apply to today's method of obtaining arms in the UK, you necessarily imply that the practice is the same or at least similar. I don't think "given/granted" was sufficiently different from "granted" so I do appreciate your disclaimer here that you do not mean it so.

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.

Heraldry did not begin as a family identifier, extended or otherwise, though you are correct that at some point later arms were used to show familial connections. Except for matriculations of existing coats of arms, uniting extended families is certainly not the only reason grants are given today. Just look at some modern grants. Some are very individualized. You will know better than I regarding the practice of the OCHI of course, but the CoA does not grant posthumous arms. Only those posthumous grants by Lyon necessarily have any relation to extended families. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of Lyon Court can say what the ratio is of matriculations to grants of new arms.

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.

Scott,

It is becoming very difficult not to feel that you are being intentionally misleading on this point. All other points aside, if, where you live, no license is required to catch fish, and it is known that no license is required to catch fish where you live, and it is also known that the fish was caught by you where you live, who on Earth could possibly imagine that you would need a fishing license from another country to show off your fish? That is the most illogical argument I may have ever heard. I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you posted it so early in the morning, shall I?

EDITED TO ADD: More to the point, a Virginia fishing license doesn't allow you to fish in Kentucky.

Best,

[SlackerDrummer]

But why on Earth would you want a registration from a country with which you have no connection whatsoever? If it is simply so that you can have the seal of approval from a government entity, then I would suggest your self-worth deserves some introspection.

That's like saying because someone wants champagne from France rather than sparking wine from up-state New York their self worth deserves some introspection. Some people just prefer "the genuine article"; to decry this seems to be rather mean spirited

I think you missed my point, but I can see where my comment could be seen as mean-spirited. I should clarify my position on this matter to some extent. I think people who live in countries with heraldic authorities should use them, whether they be granting authorities, official registries, or what have you. I don't think there is anything wrong with granted arms. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to seek a grant of arms from a foreign country, but among them is not that granted arms are real as opposed to assumed arms.

And here again, Scott, your example above is clearly misleading. In your analogy, you suggest that heraldry is sparkling wine and that granted arms are the equivalent of Champagne and that assumed arms are sparkling wines and even though they may be good sparkling wines in their own right, they are not Champagne and are therefor not, as you put it, "the genuine article." The problem with this argument is that heraldry is not sparkling wine, but simply wine. In your characterization that heraldry is sparkling wine, you have dismissed all the fine German wines and others from around the world that are the top of their classes, but which in no way purport to be Champagne.

[Zardoz]

For those who may not recognize his name, Daniel Westling is the husband of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and his last name is now Westling Vasa, Vasa being the name of the Swedish Royal Family; upon their marriage Mr. Westling took the title HRH Prince Daniel of Sweden, Duke of Vastergotland, and was invested with the insignia of the Royal Swedish Order of the Seraphim. The State Herald of Sweden, Henrik Klackenberg, by order of the King, prepared the letters patent conferring HRH Prince Daniel's titles, as well as his arms.

So guys, here's the short-cut to getting the whole Arms thing worked out; Become a personal trainer !

[WVHighlander]

Again...I think I have jinxed the whole thing. I am used to causing a stir on my other forum! I just wanted advice on getting a valid Coat of Arms!

[creagdhubh]

Well, in a perfect world, one supposes that "whom" should mean oneself. The assumption of arms to which one has no substantive entitlement isn't that much different than assuming military, scholarly, or religious rank, to which one has no entitlement. It may sound, or look, impressive, but it just isn't real.

Given that virtually anyone, with a bit of effort, can obtain substantive arms, to merely "assume" arms might suggest to some the actions of a social wannabe.

On a broader scale, suppose someone with assumed arms moved to Scotland, and wished to display his arms on the side of the family car. If the arms were substantive, regardless of where granted, Lyon would recognize them and in all probability record them for use in Scotland. Such would not be the case with assumed arms. In this instance one might find oneself being ordered to remove the arms or face prosecution.

Hope that answers the question.

Scott

Quite right!

[creagdhubh]

Again...I think I have jinxed the whole thing. I am used to causing a stir on my other forum! I just wanted advice on getting a valid Coat of Arms!

WVHighlander,

Scott has definitely given you the best, and most accurate advice - he knows what he is talking about, and has the highest degree of credibility and intergrity. The definitive answer, whichmost of has already been discussed and explained by Scott, is most readily available on the official website of the Court of the Lord Lyon - they is really no "shades of grey" when petitioning for arms (especially for non-British citizens), rather, it's very "black and white". Good luck mate!

Yours aye,

[creagdhubh]

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. -- G.K. Chesterton

Or, as C.S. Lewis warned us, Beware of chronological snobbery...

T.

I love it Todd!!! Cheers my friend and well said old chap!!!

[SlackerDrummer]

The definitive answer, whichmost of has already been discussed and explained by Scott, is most readily available on the official website of the Court of the Lord Lyon - they is really no "shades of grey" when petitioning for arms (especially for non-British citizens), rather, it's very "black and white".

What is black and white there, Kyle, is how to obtain a grant of arms from Lord Lyon. Where there are numerous - countless even - shades of gray is whether or not one ought to seek a grant from Lyon in the first place. For non-Scots, the ultimate answer is really a personal preference much of which depends on where they fall on a wide continuum of heraldic traditions.