Author Topic: assumed arms  (Read 18136 times)

Offline Peggysus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Warmly & Sincerely
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #27 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 19:52 BST (UK) »
It might be just me, but unless there is some history behind the arms, I really don't see the point of inventing one. I haven't seen it, but that Middleton one with bows sounds pretty 'tacky'.   Just my opinion. 

Yes, but it seems like that for the most part only titled and rich people are mentioned in history. My family dates back to 1560 and even though they were farmers and coal miners, I think they have their place - they lived it too! You're registered on this site, so I presume that you're interested in your ancestors - even if you find a list of names, don't you think it's nice to find something more and that it makes them a bit more real? I've found ancestors who are commemorated at Thiepval memorial, in the Register of War Dead at Edinburgh Castle, newspaper articles,  and have some family jewellery - it just seems to make it all a little closer.  Perhaps in a few hundred years time somebody will come across my coat of arms and think the same thing. In our search for ancestors, lots are interested in seeing the tombstones of  ancestors - which are a commemoration that they lived. I'm not trying to invent history - just trying to commemorate my ancestors and leave something for future researchers  :)
And of course I do live in the land of Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité!!
Warmly & Sincerely

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #28 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 20:26 BST (UK) »
The most basic way of acquiring an achievement (Coat of Arms) in England is by prescription.
That was in fact the main way in the past with very few being granted.
At the time of the Heralds visitations they recognised or allowed assumed “arms” which shows such prescribed “arms” were legal.

One must not of course display the “arms” of another as one’s own.
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Peggysus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Warmly & Sincerely
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #29 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 20:40 BST (UK) »
The most basic way of acquiring an achievement (Coat of Arms) in England is by prescription.
That was in fact the main way in the past with very few being granted.
At the time of the Heralds visitations they recognised or allowed assumed “arms” which shows such prescribed “arms” were legal.

One must not of course display the “arms” of another as one’s own.
Cheers
Guy


Thanks for the info -  I have mostly Scottish ancestry and a bit of English & Irish, so registration in the  British Isles would be an option,  but they're all very expensive. I've lived in France for years and am hoping to have my arms accepted here , then might go on to the Armorial Register (Burkes).
Of course, I've no intention of usurping anyone else's arms - my idea is to identify my family and not someone else's.
Warmly & Sincerely

Offline Peggysus

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Warmly & Sincerely
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #30 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 21:46 BST (UK) »

I think maybe I should clarify something - the coat of arms I'm using as avatar are nothing like the arms I'm thinking of registering - they are the Davidson arms I found on this site and they are the Davidson of Tulloch coat of arms. I was actually a bit surprised.  I'd been expecting something more resembling the Clan Davidson coat of arms.

Warmly & Sincerely


Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #31 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 23:33 BST (UK) »
The bow is by no means tacky, it is the standard "crest" for an unmarried woman. 
Sure David, as I said, I haven't seen the Middleton one - I just envisaged a huge pink bow on a shield ...  ;D

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #32 on: Tuesday 11 September 12 23:55 BST (UK) »
It might be just me, but unless there is some history behind the arms, I really don't see the point of inventing one. I haven't seen it, but that Middleton one with bows sounds pretty 'tacky'.   Just my opinion. 

Yes, but it seems like that for the most part only titled and rich people are mentioned in history. My family dates back to 1560 and even though they were farmers and coal miners, I think they have their place - they lived it too! You're registered on this site, so I presume that you're interested in your ancestors - even if you find a list of names, don't you think it's nice to find something more and that it makes them a bit more real? I've found ancestors who are commemorated at Thiepval memorial, in the Register of War Dead at Edinburgh Castle, newspaper articles,  and have some family jewellery - it just seems to make it all a little closer.  Perhaps in a few hundred years time somebody will come across my coat of arms and think the same thing. In our search for ancestors, lots are interested in seeing the tombstones of  ancestors - which are a commemoration that they lived. I'm not trying to invent history - just trying to commemorate my ancestors and leave something for future researchers  :)
And of course I do live in the land of Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité!!

Naturally. But I don't see how 'inventing' coat of arms goes any way to commemorating them or making them more real. Will it be made clear to future generations that their coat of arms is circa 2012?  ;D

I just don't get it I'm afraid, but never mind ...  :)

Offline Temic

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #33 on: Wednesday 12 September 12 06:36 BST (UK) »
Thank you all  for taking the time to leave your comments - not all of which I'm in agreement with :)
Lots of assumed arms are being granted, and I don't really see anything presumptuous in wanting to mark my family on the heraldry map. I am going into this quite seriously (but hoping it will be a pleasurable experience ......) and  from what I see, I think everyone is entitled to bear arms - in some cases, differenced where  family arms already exist, but, as you say, usually subject to registration of some kind. [...]

I've designed my own coat of arms, following the rules of heraldry (because I'm interested in it) and ensuring to the best of my ability that there are no other arms that clash with it, purely because I think it's bad manners, actually, just to rip off someone elses arms. I don't claim antiquity for these arms, or that they've been granted by any particular that in fact hasn't. If either male OR female descendents of mine want to use them, I again can't see a problem with that.

I genuinely don't see the problem, especially where England & Wales is concerned (Scotland's a little different, legally). The reason why the Royal College of Arms was set up in the 15th century, in my view - apart from sorting out unrelated people adopting the same arms -  it was an attempt preserve a privilege that the elites of the time felt was being diminished, as by then it wasn't just the upper classes that were adopting arms but anyone who was anyone, merchants, etc. Previous to that, people did simply arms arms as part of the paraphenalia of chivalry, which is all that it was: a sort of logo, an adornment.

Likewise, a lot of arms do have family history attached them, and symbolism: but plenty in fact don't, or it's been long since forgotten. I think we can record history by means other than a few colours and symbols, anyway.

The records of the Royal College of Arms themselves are not complete, because their visitations (1480s-1640s, something like that) failed to record all arms of every parish. Part of the reason why they were objected to was precisely because this or that person didn't want their lowly family origins and lack of "entitlement" to arms revealed. Moreover, the existence of the College did not prevent people from assuming arms, which was just as widespread (notable of recent times was the family arms of Sophie Rhys Jones as she then was).

Assuming arms in England & Wales is technically illegal (or displaying someone else's as your own) - but it's a chivalric offence, and the court to try such offences ceased to exist in the 1730s, in part because it was hammering people who it was claimed to have no right to arms but relying on the incomplete records of the Royal College to do so, since visitations had been abandoned and it wasn't definitively known who was or was not entitled to arms.

There was one case in 1954 (I think it was) when an enthusiastic legal-minded King of Arms did re-convene the court to see if the machinery worked (a theatre was using Manchester City's coat of arms without permission) but part of the judgement was precisely that the court would be unlikely ever to reconvene (although it did find in favour of the council), and a further king of arms in the 80s ruled out the possibility. My understanding is that because of changes to the legal system since, it would be impossible to reconvene, anyway. (In Scotland, the Court of the Lord Lyon has a different legal status).

So if you can't enforce a right, you don't have it.  On that basis, paying several thousand pounds - as increasingly local authorities and universities do - to the College is an utter waste of money, although I'm sure the vellum looks nice on the wall, and in reality makes it no more "official" than assumed arms. It's just a game, like the whole ridiculous feudal legacy of titles. (No one can stop you from adopting a title, such as the Duke of so-and-so, as long as it's not one that's being used, because you'll risk impersonating a real person.)

The web site of one Parish Council of which I'm aware threatens legal action against anyone who uses their coat of arms, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they've spent (wasted?) taxpayers money on and their petty-mindedness to actually include such a threat. I'm tempted to call their bluff on it, in fact, and temporarily adopt their arms.

In fact, given the history of arms, I'd go so far as to say that assuming arms has a longer and more established tradition than the "official" method and is in my view certainly more democratic (and cheaper!): Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité indeed.

100% with you, Brenda.


ESSEX Bonnett Burrows Clow (or Clough) Crampin Cressell Deacon Everett Heckford Humphries Missen Midson Pask Richmond Redgewell Tansley Tyler Whiting Wisby
SUFFOLK Brett Byford Chapman Churchyard Clow Coe Dearsley/Derisly Dous Hawes Mutimer Nunn Ransome Raw/Rolllinson Smith (Haverhill) Stollery Stringer Wallis Nunn NOTTS Hook Mills Pollicott
ENGLAND Parchment

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #34 on: Wednesday 12 September 12 07:37 BST (UK) »


I've designed my own coat of arms, following the rules of heraldry (because I'm interested in it) and ensuring to the best of my ability that there are no other arms that clash with it, purely because I think it's bad manners, actually, just to rip off someone elses arms. I don't claim antiquity for these arms, or that they've been granted by any particular that in fact hasn't. If either male OR female descendents of mine want to use them, I again can't see a problem with that.

Not only would it be bad manners but it would also be unlawful to "rip off someone elses arms".


Assuming arms in England & Wales is technically illegal (or displaying someone else's as your own) - but it's a chivalric offence, and the court to try such offences ceased to exist in the 1730s, in part because it was hammering people who it was claimed to have no right to arms but relying on the incomplete records of the Royal College to do so, since visitations had been abandoned and it wasn't definitively known who was or was not entitled to arms.

No it is perfectly legal to assume "arms" (this is not the same as displaying another's "arms" as your own).
During the Heralds' Visitations they allowed "arms" that had been assumed. That fact in itself proves that it is legal to assume "arms" in England & Wales.

Further proof is afforded by a Visitation Summons which included the following- "Moreover, I will all those that have received either arms, crests of pedigrees from one William Dakins (the late lewd usurper of the office of Norroy King of Arms) bring them in to be cancelled, if they be untrue, and, being found justifiable, to receive the same at my hands, with warranty, etc."

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Skoosh

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,736
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: assumed arms
« Reply #35 on: Wednesday 12 September 12 08:51 BST (UK) »
 Speaking of Scotland only here. Many of the present holders of arms have no real entitlement to them, leadership of many clans has failed over the years in the male line, and the present Macleod of Macleod is no more a Macleod than I am. His real name is Wolridge-Gordon which you'll agree hardly sets the heather alight. Ditto Dalyell, Sutherland etc;. The handing on of property to descendants is to blame here. Many clans had no charter to their lands and the chieftainship would pass to the nearest heir-male. There are old Scottish earldoms which descend through heirs whomsoever, but that's a different matter.
Descent through a female was anathema in clan society it meant ultimately the replacement of the clans gentry by strangers, as was the case in the Cawdor heiress Mariotta.
 There will be plenty of Macleods around who have Macleod DNA who have more right to the Macleod arms than the present holder of them.
 That said, this is the 21st century and it's all just a harmless bit of fun!