Bogus commercial heraldry....

[JerseyLawyer]

I can't credit bucket shops with much of anything, but I will say that while the "one man, one coat" idea is pretty firmly held in Scotland, things are a bit looser in England, where it's not uncommon for a man's arms to be borne by all his heirs. So, in that sense, England, at least, has the concept of "family" arms.

Of course, if you haven't done research, then you may not (or rather, very likely don't) have any relation whatsoever to the armiger who simply happened to share your last name. If you did, you probably wouldn't need the guy in the mall to tell you.

Do the people selling "family histories" and "family arms" explain any of this? No. So, I think they're doing people a disservice and creating a false impression of what heraldry is and means. For not much more money, you could get the American College of Heraldry to create your very own arms, which would be more meaningful, and would have a definite connection to your family. Sure, they'd be "assumed" arms, but there's nothing particularly wrong with that (in fact, you could argue that it's the really, really old fashioned way), and I think a better investment.

[macwilkin]

I can't credit bucket shops with much of anything, but I will say that while the "one man, one coat" idea is pretty firmly held in Scotland, things are a bit looser in England, where it's not uncommon for a man's arms to be borne by all his heirs. So, in that sense, England, at least, has the concept of "family" arms.

Well...not quite. Arms which are inherited are usually differenced, i.e. with certain symbols called labels that denote the first, second, third, etc. son known as cadency. Each son traditionally has its own label; for example, in English arms, the second son's arms bears a crescent moon, the sixth a fleur-de-lis, etc. So it's not quite the same as the bogus concept of family arms, but I can see where you draw the connection. Scottish heraldry also has a system of Cadency; our own Sketraw is a perfect example:

http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/duncan-arms.html

In English heraldry, the cadency labels are used; all you have to do is look at Prince William and Harry's arms to see an example of this system.

Regards,

Todd

[Sketraw]

Eureka!!!..........It was nice to log into this thread this evening and see so many learned members of the forum realise that there is..... in Scotland, England, Ireland & Canada no such thing as 'FAMILY ARMS' In parts of Europe however this may well differ and I agree with Jersey Lawyer, there is nothing wrong with assuming arms in the USA....at least then they will be your own. One thing though, Join the American Heraldry Society or some such organisation to make sure that any arms you may want designed meets with Heraldic standards and dont conflict with somone else. There is more to Heraldry than you at first may think.

Now......what about the £29 'BOGUS' Lairdships such as Laird of Glencairn, Laird of John O' Groats etc etc........these 'Bucket Shops' really pull the wool over peoples eyes by making it sound like a legal Scottish Laird Title. They aggravate me intensley.

[JerseyLawyer]

Well...not quite. Arms which are inherited are usually differenced, i.e. with certain symbols called labels that denote the first, second, third, etc. son known as cadency. Each son traditionally has its own label; for example, in English arms, the second son's arms bears a crescent moon, the sixth a fleur-de-lis, etc. So it's not quite the same as the bogus concept of family arms, but I can see where you draw the connection. Scottish heraldry also has a system of Cadency; our own Sketraw is a perfect example:

http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/duncan-arms.html

In English heraldry, the cadency labels are used; all you have to do is look at Prince William and Harry's arms to see an example of this system.

Regards,

Todd

Todd,

I think you'll find that the present trend (for the last several hundred years) outside of Scotland, is against cadency marks, with the exception of the Royals, who are often given a completely differenced coat. Otherwise, things become an impenetrable thicket of cadency marks. The Scottish system, of course, is designed to make things easier by using bordures.

[Sketraw]

Todd,

I think you'll find that the present trend (for the last several hundred years) outside of Scotland, is against cadency marks, with the exception of the Royals, who are often given a completely differenced coat. Otherwise, things become an impenetrable thicket of cadency marks. The Scottish system, of course, is designed to make things easier by using bordures.

Well I wouldn't entirely agree with the above, Cadency marks are still widely used in England apart from the female line who can use the arms of their father undifferenced. In Scotland yes bordures are used for the second, third son etc when they matriculate arms on leaving the family home. It is quite common to use 'temporary cadency' marks such as the crescent, star for the second and third son to differentiate between family members when they are still under the family roof. Again daughters and wives can use the armigers arms undifferenced but usually in a oval or lozenge type shield (for want of a better word) to show they are feminine.

[JerseyLawyer]

The heraldic "lozenge" shield is a diamond. But yes.

As for cadency marks, we all agree they exist, but even the College of Arms is of the opinion that piling them on top of one another makes for an absurd result, and the whole coat passes to the heirs of an armiger, who may use cadency marks if they wish.

Wikipedia also mentions several letters from the Garter Principal King of Arms to the same effect, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Several of my heraldry books say the same thing.

I think we're all right here. The marks exist. Sometimes, they're used. I'm just saying they're far from universal and are not required outside of Scotland.

[Sketraw]

The heraldic "lozenge" shield is a diamond. But yes.

As for cadency marks, we all agree they exist, but even the College of Arms is of the opinion that piling them on top of one another makes for an absurd result, and the whole coat passes to the heirs of an armiger, who may use cadency marks if they wish.

Wikipedia also mentions several letters from the Garter Principal King of Arms to the same effect, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Several of my heraldry books say the same thing.

I think we're all right here. The marks exist. Sometimes, they're used. I'm just saying they're far from universal and are not required outside of Scotland.

I would say mostly they are used in England there may well be exceptions to the rule and it may result in another form of differencing in some cases an extra charge or the like. The main difference is that in England you wouldn't get prosecuted if you didn't use cadency where as in Scotland you may well could be.

[macwilkin]

Todd,

I think you'll find that the present trend (for the last several hundred years) outside of Scotland, is against cadency marks, with the exception of the Royals, who are often given a completely differenced coat. Otherwise, things become an impenetrable thicket of cadency marks. The Scottish system, of course, is designed to make things easier by using bordures.

True, I did forget to mention bordures, but I cannot agree that the lack of cadency labels has created a de facto "family arms" in the UK.

T.