Clan badges vs family crests??

[macwilkin]

Now me I'm going to assume a Coat of Arms for myself. I mean why not? When 98% of all CoA are self-assumed anyway right? Oh don't say a word about some has-been noble having to grant you your arms, for **edit** sake the Beatles were knighted for paying taxes.

Yes, but Paul McCartney's arms were granted through the College of Arms, which is the offical heraldic authority for England.

And I think your figure of 98% of arms being assumed is a wee bit high. Maybe in the United States, but certainly not in countries where there is a heraldic authority to grant them, and it is illegal to bear assumed arms.

Now as the Armitiger, I say that this is "Family Arms" available to all who are in my family. I know what you are saying, "You can't do that." But I just did. The Lord Lyon be damned. As the second son of a baron my brother Jerry gets Dad's CoA but I can use a variation of it.

Depends, really. In the USA, since there is no Heraldic authority, then yes, you can do what ever you want with your arms. But don't knock the Lord Lyon just because the rules of Scottish heraldry disagree with what you want to do. If you're not planning on going through Scotland for your arms, then don't worry about the Lord Lyon says. Heraldry on the Continent tends to be more "liberal" anyway in regards to the "rules" than UK Heraldry, and especially Scottish Heraldry.

In the USA, as I've mentioned earlier, there is no heraldic authority, so most heraldic experts now tend to agree that Americans may assume arms, although many choose to either seek grants of arms (via an ancestor) from one of the heraldic authorities in the British Isles, or to register their arms through the American College of Heraldry (unofficial) or a foreign source, like the Russian College of Heraldry (again, unofficial), South Africa or the Spanish Cronistas Reyes de Armas (Royal Heralds).

The British Royal Family each has their' own CoA but as ERII dies, hers could go to Prince Charles and so on to Prince William. But the Royal Family as a whole use the Quartered Richard's three lions & Louis' Flur de lis. So there is such a thing as a family CoA.

Again, yes and no. Remember that arms passed from generation to another (royal or no) have some sort of "mark of difference" to distinguish that has been passed down, so technically, it is not the same (family) CoA being passed down. In Scotland this is usually done through the "border" of the arms, whilst in England it is done through cadency marks.

A quote from an article on the Scottish Heraldry Society's web site is appropriate here:

According to the Scottish laws of heraldry, a younger son has no right to his father’s arms but must petition to matriculate from those of his father his own arms, which will be differenced from his father’s.
-- http://heraldry-scotland.co.uk/beginners.html

Officially "Arms" belong to one man and gets passed down to his first born son. (Prima Gentry) Often however you find "Arms" used as a "Device." The perfect example is the Scottish clan badge.

The so-called "clan badge" is actually the "Chief's Crest Badge", which is worn by members of the clan to display their loyalty to the Chief and the Clan. It is not the arms of the clan, just the crest of the Chief's arms, which is used as the badge. Some Chiefs have registered arms for their clan's society, such as the Campbells, but the arms belong to the chief, and his clansmen and clanswomen wear his/her badge.

Bottom line: if you want to "assume" arms, then go ahead. Many people do, especially in the United States. I would much rather see someone take the time and trouble to assume their own arms, rather than just depend on a "bucket shop" to provide them with one. In designing those arms, the person will most likely learn the customs and traditions of heraldry, which is always a good thing.

Regards,

Todd