That's easy to say when it's not your property.
Arms are private property, as Macman mentioned. There is no such creature as a "family crest". In countries with a heraldic authority, such as Scotland, Canada, etc., the use of arms that are not your own is illegal -- the usurping of arms.
And yes, I know...America does not have a heraldic authority, no rules, freedom of expression and all that. But just because you can doesn't mean you should, if nothing else out of respect for the custom.
I would much rather see Americans "assume" their own arms with no recognition from a heraldic authority than usurp them from someone else. Some heraldic scholars believe that in a nation with no legal heraldic authority, assuming arms is acceptable, although they may not be recognized by the Lyon Court, et al.
Why not use the clansman's badge that you have displayed as your avatar, as Macman mentioned? That is the whole purpose of it, after all, for clansmen and clanswomen to show their loyalty to the chief and clan.
Technically, though, by usurping the Chief's arms, you are doing just that.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I have been a student of heraldry for many years now, and I'm only telling you what I know. Our own Matt Newsome has a great introductory article on his web site about Scottish heraldry that is worth perusing:
http://www.albanach.org/scotheraldry.html
I dealt with this question on a fairly regular basis as a genealogical librarian, and I gave folks the same advice I'm giving you now: while technically, as many have said here, there is nothing "illegal" about here in the USA, it's just not correct. I feel that someone should give the opposing viewpoint in this thread for informational purposes.
But, in the end, it's your decision. I'm not going to attack you for it, or have you hauled in front of the Lyon Court. As a librarian, all I can do is provide the opposing viewpoint for your consideration.
Regards,
Todd
Bookmarks