bucket shops

[Scotus]

What does it really matter?

It matters because the arms you're hanging on your wall as "my coat of arms," are owned by someone else. They are arms to which others do not have a right. As far was "belonging" to the wider Scottish community, buy a crest plaque to hang on the wall instead of usurping the chief's coat of arms as your own.

[davedove]

If you want to hang heraldry or the like on the wall, join a society that has it's own heraldry or the like. You would be most entitled to display that. If you have a clan connection, purchase a clan crest plaque.

It matters because the arms you're hanging on your wall as "my coat of arms," are owned by someone else. They are arms to which others do not have a right. As far was "belonging" to the wider Scottish community, buy a crest plaque to hang on the wall instead of usurping the chief's coat of arms as your own.

If someone really wants a coat of arms to hang on the wall, it's not that difficult to have your own designed and registered. It won't have the historical significance that many are looking for, but at least it will truly be yours.

[prb]

I note with interest that we are all referring to the thing sold by bucket shops as a "coat of arms".

Such shops often indulge in the abhorrent practice of calling it a "crest".

[Phil E. Begg]

Weeelll... it all truly stems from the absolutely understandable impulse - we all want to believe that we are, individually, "special". The bucket-shops play on this, of course. I think we need to be a little more tolerant, though, of those who have bought heraldic items from these con artists.

It is, indeed, wrong to "use" someone else's heraldry as your own. If someone buys a plaque and puts it above his chair at the head of his dining table, and refers to it as "his own" arms, that is clearly misuse - in the 1400s, it would have been the equivalent of identity theft. But there is nothing wrong with using it as a decorative element in the house - along with others, if he has them - if he does not claim the arms as his own. There are many Stately Houses in the various parts of Britain which have displays of arms, many of which have had no family connection to the house in centuries.

As far as your "own" coat of arms, heraldic achievement, "family crest"... it is still possible to get one officially registered if you live in Scotland, England, or Wales and meet the other requirements. An American, being sovereign unto himself and thereby his own fons honorum, as it were, may assume whatever arms he wishes, and may display them however he likes (Gorrelpus!) so long as he does not attempt to do so in a country that regulates such things. Donald Trump seems to have got in some trouble over that one, I believe. BTW - whereas there IS an American College of Heraldry, there is no "authority" that can officially grant American arms. They can be registered with various organizations, but they have no legal status unless you copyright them.

Insofar as impinging on someone else's rights in such case (if you do not start out with an intention of just using some old plaque as your own arms), and you adhere to the old rules of heraldry (tinctures and charges and ordinaries, oh my!) you will still very likely come up with something that is nearly identical to someone else's arms. If you didn't do it intentionally, and most likely the surname will be different in such case, don't worry about it too much. With a limited palette of colors and designs, it is going to happen.

On the other hand, if you think about it, at 14 generations back, you had a hypothetical 8,000-and-something male ancestors. If the direct male line ancestor, all the way back, that 1 in 8,000 guys, was the one guy that owned that particular piece of heraldry, then yes, indeed, you are the only one on the planet who has the right to bear those arms. Oh - but only if you are the eldest brother, and your father was the eldest brother, and his father... on back 14 generations. Pretty slim chance, hmmm?


Phil
(sorry, I do tend to ramble on the subject. Anybody want to check my thesis?)

[gilmore]

...It is, indeed, wrong to "use" someone else's heraldry as your own. If someone buys a plaque and puts it above his chair at the head of his dining table, and refers to it as "his own" arms, that is clearly misuse - in the 1400s, it would have been the equivalent of identity theft.

It still is.

But there is nothing wrong with using it as a decorative element in the house - along with others, if he has them - if he does not claim the arms as his own. There are many Stately Houses in the various parts of Britain which have displays of arms, many of which have had no family connection to the house in centuries.

Perhaps, but they did at one time. It isn't unusual for the owners of such a house to also sell the paintings and statues in it, but no subsequent owner who is honest claims them as his own. Suppose a private person bought Stonehenge. Would he then claim to be a Druid?

...An American, being sovereign unto himself . ....

Well, not exactly, but anyhow...

There is a reason for Americans not having arms. It's called the American Revolution, which was fought for among other principles, the abolition of inherited privilege. Coats of arms, crests, feudal baronies of shady provenance, etc, are the trappings of a monarchy, not a republic, and IMHO if those who legitimately have a right to them want to dispaly or use them, it would be more appropriate for them to do so within in the confines of that monarchy.

There is a family history of the Fontaines of Virginia somewhere around the house in which is reproduced a letter from one of my collateral ancestors responding to a young relative in the early 19th century who asked what the family coat of arms were. The old man, a veteran of the Revolution, told him in no uncertain terms that the days of such things were over.

Am I the only one here who sees the irony in one thread on this board proposing a tartan for those soldiers who fight to export our brand of democracy to countries that never in history had representative government, and another thread on establishing the accoutrements that are antithetical to that same democratic system? Sometimes things just don't add up.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

On the other hand, if you think about it, at 14 generations back, you had a hypothetical 8,000-and-something male ancestors. If the direct male line ancestor, all the way back, that 1 in 8,000 guys, was the one guy that owned that particular piece of heraldry, then yes, indeed, you are the only one on the planet who has the right to bear those arms. Oh - but only if you are the eldest brother, and your father was the eldest brother, and his father... on back 14 generations. Pretty slim chance, hmmm?

Phil
(sorry, I do tend to ramble on the subject. Anybody want to check my thesis?)

Sorry Phil, but when granting de novo arms (especially in Scotland) heralds work on the principle of the indeterminate cadet-- creating a coat of arms that shows relationship without specificity. This is usually done by taking the arms of the chef de nom and modifying it by the addition of one or more additional charges, or (less common) by changing tinctures. Once this new coat is created, the ordinary rules of cadency apply.

The idea behind this is that if all the arms of a particular family were displayed together, a common theme of relationship would be seen. Probably the best example of this in recent Scottish armory are the various arms granted to members of Clan Gayre.

Sooo, assuming your name is your name, and that 14 generations gave you 8,000 collateral cousins, you could sue out arms based on the arms of one of those individuals as an indeterminate cadet, without provably being his senior living male heir. That would come into play only if you wanted those exact arms, without "due and proper differences".

[macwilkin]

There is a reason for Americans not having arms. It's called the American Revolution, which was fought for among other principles, the abolition of inherited privilege. Coats of arms, crests, feudal baronies of shady provenance, etc, are the trappings of a monarchy, not a republic, and IMHO if those who legitimately have a right to them want to dispaly or use them, it would be more appropriate for them to do so within in the confines of that monarchy.

There is a family history of the Fontaines of Virginia somewhere around the house in which is reproduced a letter from one of my collateral ancestors responding to a young relative in the early 19th century who asked what the family coat of arms were. The old man, a veteran of the Revolution, told him in no uncertain terms that the days of such things were over.

Sorry, Scott, but I can't agree with this, and I have George Washington on my side :

It is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armor, etc. might not be rendered conducive to public and private use with us; or that they can have any tendency unfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism.* On the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress, and the states; all of which have established some kind of Armorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments.

*emphasis mine.

As I'm sure you well know, the old boy had arms:

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/in...ent.Washington

And, I would be remiss in not mention one of freedom's most vocal champions, Robert Burns, who also designed arms for himself:

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/newsle...le_science.htm

Regards,

Todd

[Phil E. Begg]

Wow - I knew I was getting technical, I didn't realize I wasn't getting technical enough!

Gilmore - okay, I have no problem with calling it identity theft, if done knowingly and not simply as a victim of a bucket-shop's drive-by genealogy. And do remember that I did differentiate between putting heraldic displays up on a wall, and placing one prominently and claiming it as one's own.

MacMillan of R - thanks... I really wasn't going to get that technical, as somebody who had means and knowledge to get to the point of "indeterminate cadency" would be so far beyond bucket-shop heraldry... But good on you for keeping me honest.

Cajunscot, you beat me to it. Nicely put. Although the origins of heraldic display began with simple visibility on a battlefield, among men who would mostly be counted among the aristocracy, it was not long before nearly all classes of society would be participating to some extent. There are far more armigerous families outside the titled aristocracy today than within it; and the United KINGdom is certainly a representative democracy today.

And yes, Gilmore, I think I am agreeing with you in principle, but there is precedent for an American being considered "sovereign unto himself". That is the basis for the long and proud tradition of Americans not bowing before the King.


Phil

[sirdaniel1975]

Weeelll...

On the other hand, if you think about it, at 14 generations back, you had a hypothetical 8,000-and-something male ancestors. If the direct male line ancestor, all the way back, that 1 in 8,000 guys, was the one guy that owned that particular piece of heraldry, then yes, indeed, you are the only one on the planet who has the right to bear those arms. Oh - but only if you are the eldest brother, and your father was the eldest brother, and his father... on back 14 generations. Pretty slim chance, hmmm?


Phil
(sorry, I do tend to ramble on the subject. Anybody want to check my thesis?)

Here's a helpful chart.

[Phil E. Begg]

Oh, right. Skipped one... okay, at 15 generations, you would have a putative and approximate (with few or no crossed lines) 8,000 or so male ancestors. Most of us would have some or several duplicates at that point, especially if we came from a somewhat isolated geographical area.

Thanks


Phil