Getting a COA registered

[Gael Ridire]

I'm entering this at the tail end and must say that it has been an interesting banter of points of opinions.

For what it is worth, I obtained a grant from the Chief Herald of Ireland in 1991. On immigration of my family around 1830 from Ireland to Canada, then into the U.S. the surname was changed. 1) In receiving a grant of arms my feeling was that I had reclaimed my birthright. Second) It was something concerning the heritage that could continue to be handed down in the family for generations to come and hopefully not forget from whence they came. 3) To be the highlight page in a 3500 page family history that took me 30 years to research and write. 4) I was displaying my individuality as a Gael which can be good & bad.

As for the pretension on social class it has already been stated; there are granted arms by authority, and burgher arms, period. To me what is important is the use of arms! I don't care by what authority.

Would I petition for a grant today? Probably not. Why? In twenty years the cost of a grant has nearly tripled from what I paid. But that isn't the main reason. My children who grew up with the letters patent on the wall, don't have any real desire to use or display them, especially their spouses. One of my daughters-in-law doesn't understand it at all. I no longer have the funds to have cast my own badges for the extending family (I can't find the molds and must have new one's made). I find myself alone in their use.

[WVHighlander]

Gael...Do you want to adopt a 30 something year old? I would be more than happy to carry on the arms!!

[Gael Ridire]

Thanks for the offer WVHiglander, but since my two sons have just gotten' married, I should give them a chance to continue on the arms (however they can change the surname from Bryant back to the original O'Bryan). But say in ten years we'll have to talk again.

[Joseph McMillan]

As for the pretension on social class it has already been stated; there are granted arms by authority, and burgher arms, period.

The English heraldic theorists who propagated this notion have a great deal to answer for!

"Burgher arms" are nothing more or less than the arms of a burgher family--that is to say, a non-noble family enjoying the citizenship of a city. There are also clerical arms, yeoman arms, even peasant arms. Germany and France are full of arms granted or confirmed by authority (Hofpfalzgrafen in Germany, the d'Hozier juges d'armes in 17th century France) that are unambiguously burgher arms. All those arms in the Armorial General de France that belong to "Jean Deaux, marchand de Deauville" and "Richard Reaux, bourgeois de Reaumont"--they're all by definition burgher arms, because the bearers were burghers (bourgeois).

And the entire continent is full of arms belonging to nobles that were originally assumed and never granted or approved by "authority." The English theory would presumably have it that these are "burgher arms"--tell that to the member of the old nobility whose family has been using them for the last 800 years!

To me what is important is the use of arms! I don't care by what authority.

Amen!

My children who grew up with the letters patent on the wall, don't have any real desire to use or display them, especially their spouses. One of my daughters-in-law doesn't understand it at all.

That's okay...the arms are theirs whether they use them or not, and perhaps their children in turn will be interested. Or theirs, or theirs after them. Who knows?

[Gael Ridire]

Point taken concerning Burgher arms! One must be careful to generalize concerning arms rules, for most printed articles are just concerning Great Britain and one forgets that their rules don't encompass the world.