RootsChat.Com
Some Special Interests => Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms => Topic started by: Peggysus on Sunday 09 September 12 00:39 BST (UK)
-
Is anybody actually trying to create a coat of arms rather than searching for one that already exists? I know no-one in my family had arms and am in the process of creating my own coat of arms with symbols from my mother's and father's family.
Has anyone any experience in this?
There are so many conflicting opinions -the only thing I can work out is that you shouldn't put metal on metal or colour on colour but even then some don't adhere to this. Otherwise it seems to be a minefield!
It reminds me of the "tartan laws" where you can't wear any tartan you want even though you can buy any tartan from shops without proving that you have the name?
-
I see from your profile you are not resident in the UK, so I don't know what the regulations are there.In England and Wales, see http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ and in Scotland http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/CCC_FirstPage.jsp - in the Scottish case it's actually illegal to claim arms without a grant from the Lord Lyon King of Arms.
-
It seems a pity, even presumptuous, to me for anyone to create their own coat of arms. In most cases coats of arms either contain an embedded history going back many generations or a recognition of specific achievements. When the college of arms or a similar body is involved they not only look for appropriate history but also check that there is no clash with other existing coats of arms.
In particular many of the elements of a coat of arms have specific meanings and should be avoided where they are inappropriate or correctly used. One simple example is the helm (helmet) that shows the rank of the person involved. The construction of a shield is very complex where the positioning etc of various elements has very specific meanings.
It is unfair to later generations to do this incorrectly and akin to making up a tree for your early ancestors. It is difficult enough to interpret coats of arms without having to deal with imposters. I would encourage you if you proceed with this to disobey rules like the relationship of metals and colours so that it is obvious to experts that the coat of arms is not genuine.
-
If you were entitled to arms, you would know that already as you would have inherited the right. You can apply for arms from the proper authority in which you live. Making them up is not really a good idea.
I am directly descended from many people who did have arms (I can trace my ancestry to a daughter of Robert Bruce, king of Scots), but I personally have no right whatsoever to any arms.
-
Brenda, you can wear any tartan you like, you can even design your own.
Skoosh.
-
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 am planning on registering my coat of arms with the Conseil Héraldique in France, where I live and where anyone can bear arms. One person can even register more than one coat of arms as circumstances and preferences evolve.
There is no obligation to use any existing family arms either as a coat of arms is personal to the individual so no-one in the future would be obliged to base themselves on my arms.
Heraldry rules do seem to be evolving too.
Once I get the design finalised, I will let the Conseil Héraldique guide me in any final modifications if need be. And of course I will be very careful not to copy anyone else's arms - I can well understand that copying is not allowed.
Thanks, Skoosh, for the comments about the tartan - I got in touch a while ago with the Clan involved for my Mum's tartan & I was encouraged to wear it with pride!
-
I heard that Scottish clan tartans are inventions of the 19th Century weaving industry. There were obviously tartans for different parts of Scotland and Ireland over the centuries, but many modern tartans were simply impossible to make earlier than the 1880s. Tartans older than that must have been made from natural dyes and would have been of muted tones of green, brown etc - no bright reds or yellows like you see today - and probably very similar to each other.
I do think though that the Tartan manufacturers saw a marketing opportunity when Americans with a Scottish background came over looking for their ancestors and produced many different tartans supposedly associated with many old Scottish names.
Lizzie
-
One is reminded of the American lady in the Edinburgh tartan shop enquiring after a (plaid) tartan tie for her husband and adding that he was a direct descendant of Greyfriars Bobby!
Skoosh.
-
I think that Kate Middleton's family 'created' a coat of arms when she married Prince William - not sure if they asked if they could or were told that they should. ;)
I was surprised when I heard that - I didn't realise you could' invent', a coat of arms. :-\
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
-
.
I do think though that the Tartan manufacturers saw a marketing opportunity when Americans with a Scottish background came over looking for their ancestors and produced many different tartans supposedly associated with many old Scottish names.
Lizzie
One person's marketing opportunity is another person's scam ;D
-
. I got in touch a while ago with the Clan involved for my Mum's tartan & I was encouraged to wear it with pride!
See above! ;)
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
Thanks for clarifying that. :)
-
One is reminded of the American lady in the Edinburgh tartan shop enquiring after a (plaid) tartan tie for her husband and adding that he was a direct descendant of Greyfriars Bobby!
Skoosh.
Ha Ha - they probably sold her one too because I think a Greyfriars Bobby tartan exists - there's certainly one for the pandas at Edinburgh zoo ::)
-
If you were entitled to arms, you would know that already as you would have inherited the right. You can apply for arms from the proper authority in which you live. Making them up is not really a good idea.
I am directly descended from many people who did have arms (I can trace my ancestry to a daughter of Robert Bruce, king of Scots), but I personally have no right whatsoever to any arms.
I'm not sure who would actually tell you that you have no right to bear arms - you might not have the right to bear Robert the Bruce's Arms (or the Earl of Elgin's) by inheritancee but I know you can create arms and you could pobably even take an element from the Bruce's arms (these are after all only symbols (& many of the same symbols are duplicated on thet arms of different individuals, families and clans)- it's the whole achievement that's copyright). A heraldry artist would help you - I know people who have had symbols suggested to them by the Lord Lyon so they do give help in creation(although South Africa is less expensive).
If you really want to have a coat of arms, you should make a few more enquiries.
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
They were registered with the College of Arms but I think she must have given quite a lot of input - three acorns for the three Middelton children, gold for her mother's maiden name (the father doesn't seem to be represented much although I only read it quickly).
But it only proves that arms can be created without being inherited :)
Can't say I'm very keen on the "girly" bow but I'm not very keen on helmets for women either although they do exist (there's one in the Thistle Chapel in St Giles Cathedral ).In Canada, women couldn't have helmets until now , but the heraldry rule has just been changed .
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
Actually I'm not sure Pippa can take her sister's coat of arms - I think unmarried daughters can bear their father's arms with a bow but Kate's arms are probably exclusive to her :-\
-
One is reminded of the American lady in the Edinburgh tartan shop enquiring after a (plaid) tartan tie for her husband and adding that he was a direct descendant of Greyfriars Bobby!
Skoosh.
Although I thought a Greyfrairs Bobby tartan had probably existed for ages I see it's only just been created (in August) to help the homeless which is rather nice so I won't be mocking Bobby's tartan :-[
-
;D Dugless!
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
Actually I'm not sure Pippa can take her sister's coat of arms - I think unmarried daughters can bear their father's arms with a bow but Kate's arms are probably exclusive to her :-\
I’ve delved into this a bit more and the coat of arms isn’t exactly Kate Middleton’s but the Middleton family’s, so of course Pippa can bear them.
That will teach me to write off quickly when I’m at work and trying to be discreet on the net ….. ;)
It’s a bit confusing though when they keep saying they talk about Kate’s coat of arms …..
-
;D Dugless!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Douglas
non no the Duglesses have had a tartan for agens ..... ;D
-
;D Dugless!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Douglas
No no - the Duglesses have had a tartan for ages ;D
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
Actually I'm not sure Pippa can take her sister's coat of arms - I think unmarried daughters can bear their father's arms with a bow but Kate's arms are probably exclusive to her :-\
I’ve delved into this a bit more and the coat of arms isn’t exactly Kate Middleton’s but the Middleton family’s, so of course Pippa can bear them.
That will teach me to write off quickly when I’m at work and trying to be discreet on the net ….. ;)
It’s a bit confusing though when they keep saying they talk about Kate’s coat of arms …..
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'. :P Just my opinion. ;)
-
The bow is by no means tacky, it is the standard "crest" for an unmarried woman. To be pedantic, it isn't actually a crest but a replacement for the helm (helmet) but I can't remember the precise term. Where it occurs in an inherited coat of arms there may sometimes be a crest on top of the bow.
What is intreguing about the Middleton grant is that it seems only Kate and Pippa were entitled to use the coat of arms.
However it should be noted that royal coats of arms have traditionally broken heraldic rules that apply to their subjects.
-
I'm not sure who would actually tell you that you have no right to bear arms.
I thought that Scottish Law still makes it illegal to use arms, where no right exists?
The rights are granted by the Herald in Scotland - Lord Lyon?
The law in England & Wales is less stringent!
-
I'm not sure who would actually tell you that you have no right to bear arms.
I thought that Scottish Law still makes it illegal to use arms, where no right exists?
The rights are granted by the Herald in Scotland - Lord Lyon?
The law in England & Wales is less stringent!
Even under English Law you have to be careful about using an existing coat of arms to which you are not entitled, although there is no evidence of anyone, except those with a commercial interest, having taken action in recent years.
-
I always fancied a coat of arms for the car door but the thought of The Lord Lion coming down my street in a tabard, and kicking the door in, has sent me homeward tae think again.
Ah well!
Skoosh.
-
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!!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ... :)
-
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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/347718.stm) 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.
-
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
-
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!
-
Thanks for the vote of support :). I’ll let you know how I get on with the French Conseil Héraldique in the next few months. Quite agree that, apart from Lord Lyon, South Africa and Canada, the others seem to be more “publication” than grant. However, I’d like to leave a record and the French Conseil is only a fraction of the price of the others.
Another idea I’ve heard is to post a drawing/photo of the coat of arms to yourself in a registered envelope and after delivery, to keep it sealed as proof of date which could give some form of copyright. But I suppose this would only be if you wanted to take somebody to court for usurping arms. …
But it all seems like entering some “secret society” – shame really. ::)
-
I think you will find that the Royal College of Arms created the arms for the Middleton family. As the family had no heraldic history, they were constructed from scratch using elements from the family names etc. However they could only be used by Kate and Pippa as they were specifically designed for an unmarried (using a ribbon as a crest) woman (being vaguely lozenge shaped).
Thus for Kate they became inapplicable once she was married.
A correction if I may: The Arms were devised and granted to Kate's father, Michael Francis Middleton. As such they can be displayed by all the family members with appropriate "differences". I put together a possible display which can be viewed at The Middleton Armorial Tree (http://heraldryonline.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-middleton-armorial-tree/). I even had a go at showing how Kate's Arms might be impaled with those of her husband: The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge Arms. (http://heraldryonline.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-duke-duchess-of-cambridge-arms/)
-
With regard to assuming Arms within the United Kingdom. In Scotland it is illegal and you can be prosecuted if you display Arms to which you are not entitled. In England & Wales there is often a lot of nonsense written about the College of Arms could and could not do, especially during the Visitations.
Whilst I am sure some Arms were genuinely "lost" because they were not recorded, the unfortunate fact is that they would not now be recognised as "lawful" ( there would have to be documentary proof to convince the College otherwise).
The College of Arms does not have the legal "weight" as the Lyon Court but it could, in the future, put the heraldic boot in. If you were to devise your own Arms for use in private there would not be a real problem. It is a bit like having your own family rules for playing cricket/football etc.. No one is really bothered until you try to use those rules in a "proper" game. If your child or grandchild was so successful in their career that they were honoured in some way that included the display of their Arms, there would be some possible embarrassment when the College of Arms informs them that the Arms they have used for generations are bogus. [My ggg-grandfather married an heiress and one branch of her family displayed Arms in various 19th century publications. I wondered if she was also a heraldic heiress and so delved a bit deeper. Unfortunately, that branch of the family had either assumed or been misled into believing their Arms were genuine. I think it came to light in the 1890s when they wished to quarter the Arms of a heraldic heiress with theirs. The result was a new grant that was similar to the assumed Arms but sufficiently different to ensure that the Arms were clearly new.]
-
And, as promised, here is my coat of arms as published ! Quite a good year to have a coat of arms relating to pits and miners published, although they've been in creation for almost a year so no provocation intended.
And Skoosh, something on them might be familiar to you if you're from the same area as me :)
-
Ia it an iron thing for taking yer pit bits aff at the door?
Skoosh.
-
Ia it an iron thing for taking yer pit bits aff at the door?
Skoosh.
Oh dear, don't you know what pheons are - you're from nearer my home town than I thought ;D
-
Kelvinside for a mobile?
Skoosh.
-
;D