Getting a COA registered

[SlackerDrummer]

If you live in Scotland, substantive arms are better because the use of self-assumed arms is illegal and can lead to a fine and the confiscation of any property bearing said arms.

Yes, but Scotland is the only country in the world for which that is the case.

Also, arms registered with a government body are generally the legal property of the bearer and, in Scotland and South Africa at least, the fees of matriculation also cover the legal defense of the use of the arms.

Legal protection is vague at best in any country other than the two you cite.

Added to that is the question of tradition and the correct adherence to the laws of arms (which vary from country to country). Arms granted by and registered with an organization whose history goes back over 1,500 years mean a lot more to me than arms granted by a group of pseudo-armigers that have formed an ad-hoc organization only in the past century.

Arms were not granted ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD until the 15th century (hardly 1500 years ago) and the original purpose of "granting" arms (in England at least) had everything to do with collecting taxes and exerting control over the feudal system. No more. No less. It was never about recognizing one's merits or social standing.

I have nothing against heraldic organizations in the USA, Spain, and elsewhere that strive to keep the use of heraldry alive when their governments have no official heraldic authority for civilian arms. But if given the choice, I would take the substantive arms over a document from such an organization for the reasons listed above.

In some countries, in fact most on the continent of Europe, there was NEVER an official heraldic authority.

So, if you want a coat of arms just for a bit of fun, don't care if others use them, and aren't worried about the correctness of the arms or the ancient heraldic traditions of your ancestors, go ahead and make up your own arms and emblazon them wherever you'd like (so long as it's not in Scotland). If this is the case, I honestly wouldn't bother registering them with anyone unless you're interested in getting in touch with others that have assumed arms.

Unless you live in Scotland or South Africa, you have no recourse if someone else uses your arms regardless of whether or not they are granted or assumed. I don't buy into the "traditions of your ancestors" bit. The reason to have a grant from Lyon for a Scot is because they have to, plain and simple. That isn't a tradition, it's the law. Like any number of other things, that burden was lifted when emigration occurred.

For those that are interested in substantive arms but that don't have a documented genealogical connection to Scotland or another country that would grant arms to the foreign descendants of its citizens, the Bureau of Heraldry of South Africa will generally be able to accommodate you.

But why on Earth would you want a registration from a country with which you have no connection whatsoever? If it is simply so that you can have the seal of approval from a government entity, then I would suggest your self-worth deserves some introspection.

Well, in a perfect world, one supposes that "whom" means oneself. The assumption of arms to which one has no substantive entitlement isn't that much different than assuming military, scholarly, or religious rank, to which one has no entitlement. It may sound, or look, impressive, but it just isn't real.

That is simply not true and a very Anglo-centric perspective. The assumption of arms is and always has been the norm on the continent of Europe. Nothing about a grant of arms makes them more real in any substantive way to anyone except those who live in countries where there is an acting granting authority. While a grant to someone living outwith Scotland may be more meaningful to it's recipient, granted arms are in no way, legally, socially, or otherwise better than assumed arms.

Given that virtually anyone, with a bit of effort, can obtain substantive arms, to merely "assume" arms might suggest to some the actions of a social wannabe.

Yes, anyone with a bit of effort and the requisite cash on hand. Given that all it takes is the ability to pay for a grant of arms to "achieve" one, it makes one wonder who is the real social wannabe, doesn't it? There is no background check for obtaining a coat of arms from any of the authorities and they are reactive rather than proactive grants. Therefore, they do not convey any type of social status.

On a broader scale, suppose someone with assumed arms moved to Scotland, and wished to display his arms on the side of the family car. If the arms were substantive, regardless of where granted, Lyon would recognize them and in all probability record them for use in Scotland. Such would not be the case with assumed arms. In this instance one might find oneself being ordered to remove the arms or face prosecution.

I am quite aware of the laws in Scotland regarding heraldry. If one moves to Scotland, that puts them under the jurisdiction of Lyon and that is a game-changer. The law of the land is the law of the land. But I doubt what you're saying applies to everyone with assumed arms. I'd be willing to bet Lyon would recognize the arms assumed by (then Mr.) Daniel Westling.