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.

[auld argonian]

So basically what we're talkin' about is a wee bit of artwork on a shield background that lets the person who sees it know who you are? Maybe there was a use for that back in the age of massive illiteracy but now it's just kind of another decorative bit...why not just say that you've designed a LOGO for yourself and have it registered as a trademark®...

I'm sorry but any contemporary use of a Coat of Arms seems like a a bit of a pretension. Do people in the UK actually ride around in their autos with their coats of arms emblazoned on the doors? I'd think that a certain degree of anonymity would be a good security measure for anyone who might be considered wealthy or important....why advertise that you're "somebody"? I think that age has passed.

I suppose that it's a fun thing to do...to a certain extent...my farthest back Scottish ancestor had a really nifty lookin' coat of arms and I do admit that I've been tempted to do a somewhat cleaned up version as a t-shirt only because it's great color and great geometry and would probably be mistaken for a comic book hero's emblem (like the Superman "S") but it would only be as a fun thing...I know full well that it belonged to him and not me.

I have followed this with some interest since it has, for the most part, been a very good academic discussion.

Best

AA

[macwilkin]

So basically what we're talkin' about is a wee bit of artwork on a shield background that lets the person who sees it know who you are? Maybe there was a use for that back in the age of massive illiteracy but now it's just kind of another decorative bit...why not just say that you've designed a LOGO for yourself and have it registered as a trademark®...

I'm sorry but any contemporary use of a Coat of Arms seems like a a bit of a pretension. Do people in the UK actually ride around in their autos with their coats of arms emblazoned on the doors? I'd think that a certain degree of anonymity would be a good security measure for anyone who might be considered wealthy or important....why advertise that you're "somebody"? I think that age has passed.

I suppose that it's a fun thing to do...to a certain extent...my farthest back Scottish ancestor had a really nifty lookin' coat of arms and I do admit that I've been tempted to do a somewhat cleaned up version as a t-shirt only because it's great color and great geometry and would probably be mistaken for a comic book hero's emblem (like the Superman "S") but it would only be as a fun thing...I know full well that it belonged to him and not me.

I have followed this with some interest since it has, for the most part, been a very good academic discussion.

Best

AA

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. -- G.K. Chesterton

Or, as C.S. Lewis warned us, Beware of chronological snobbery...

T.

[creagdhubh]

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. -- G.K. Chesterton

Or, as C.S. Lewis warned us, Beware of chronological snobbery...

T.

I love it Todd!!! Cheers my friend and well said old chap!!!

[Bugbear]

Or, as C.S. Lewis warned us, Beware of chronological snobbery...

I don't know the context of C. S. Lewis's quote, but wouldn't that also apply to something like the following?

"My traditions are five-hundred years old, and your's are only three-hundred years old, so not as valid as mine..."
Some of the posts were leaning that direction.

Just had to get it out of my head before it drove me crazy.

[macwilkin]

I don't know the context of C. S. Lewis's quote, but wouldn't that also apply to something like the following?

"My traditions are five-hundred years old, and your's are only three-hundred years old, so not as valid as mine..."
Some of the posts were leaning that direction.

Just had to get it out of my head before it drove me crazy.

I would have to find the article that deals with the context of Lewis's warning, but both he and Chesterton were warning against those who look back and judge those in history by our standards today.

T.

[Bugbear]

I would have to find the article that deals with the context of Lewis's warning, but both he and Chesterton were warning against those who look back and judge those in history by our standards today.

T.

Oh! I wasn't reading either quite correctly, then.
Thanks, cajunscot.

[SlackerDrummer]

So basically what we're talkin' about is a wee bit of artwork on a shield background that lets the person who sees it know who you are? Maybe there was a use for that back in the age of massive illiteracy but now it's just kind of another decorative bit...why not just say that you've designed a LOGO for yourself and have it registered as a trademark®...

The age of "paper heraldry" has existed for several hundred years now and is surely a tradition in and of itself. In fact there are many coats of arms that have existed for more than a hundred years that would have made horrible identifiers on the field of battle. There is nothing to stop someone from developing a logo for themselves, but logos do not have the same inherent meaning that a coat of arms does.

I'm sorry but any contemporary use of a Coat of Arms seems like a a bit of a pretension. Do people in the UK actually ride around in their autos with their coats of arms emblazoned on the doors? I'd think that a certain degree of anonymity would be a good security measure for anyone who might be considered wealthy or important....why advertise that you're "somebody"? I think that age has passed.

If so, they are more likely to have a very small (not more than an inch or so) painting of the crest from their arms above the door handle. But the simple answer is, no, they are not likely. Stationery, however is a different story.

I suppose that it's a fun thing to do...to a certain extent...my farthest back Scottish ancestor had a really nifty lookin' coat of arms and I do admit that I've been tempted to do a somewhat cleaned up version as a t-shirt only because it's great color and great geometry and would probably be mistaken for a comic book hero's emblem (like the Superman "S") but it would only be as a fun thing...I know full well that it belonged to him and not me.

In point of fact it does belong to you. Or at least a variation of it does.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

My comments are in BOLD:

So basically what we're talkin' about is a wee bit of artwork on a shield background that lets the person who sees it know who you are?

Right, except that "wee bit of artwork" follows certain, specific, rules.

Maybe there was a use for that back in the age of massive illiteracy but now it's just kind of another decorative bit...why not just say that you've designed a LOGO for yourself and have it registered as a trademark®...

Well you could, but it wouldn't be "heraldry" in the accepted sense of the word. Semiotics is the science of non-linguistic sign systems. Heraldry (or more properly armoury) is such a system, although it possesses a diversity of functions and attributes which are not necessarily found in other semiotic systems, such as road signs and logos; for one thing it is hereditary, and that is probably it's single most important atttribute.

You see, heraldry today, just as much as in the 13th century, serves the purpose of identifying the exact relationship of all of the various members of vastly extended families. It is, in effect, a series of technicolour markers in a family's genealogy; multi-coloured decorations on each branch of a family tree.

I'm sorry but any contemporary use of a Coat of Arms seems like a a bit of a pretension.

If taken to an extreme, it could be seen in that light; however in its normal day-to-day applications the use of personal heraldry rarely rivals the pretentious display of "brand names" on tee shirts and baseball caps. A small signet ring somehow lacks the vulgarity of a fake, rhinestone encrusted, "Rolex" watch.

Do people in the UK actually ride around in their autos with their coats of arms emblazoned on the doors?

Well, yes, and probably more than you'd imagine. They do it in the USA and Canada as well. Typically the arms (or more usually the crest) emblazoned on a private motorcar measure no more than about 2"x2" and is certainly more discrete than the "in-your-face" bumper stickers one encounters on most vehicles.

I'd think that a certain degree of anonymity would be a good security measure for anyone who might be considered wealthy or important....why advertise that you're "somebody"? I think that age has passed.

Actually, we seem to live in an age of "look at me" celebrity, where everybody from rap stars to the pool dude married to the middle-aged actress clamors for attention. Compared to the blinged out excesses of your average Cadillac Escalade, or the rice rocket Subaru with the 1000 watt stereo blaring in the trunk, a postage stamp size bit of heraldry on the door of a car is pretty much invisible.

[Cygnus]

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.

It's not 3011? You are right, of course - I had originally entered "around the year 1,500" and, realizing this was wrong but not having a source on hand for the year that the office of Lord Lyon, King of Arms is first mentioned, I actually neglected to edit the number when I changed the sentence. Still, over 500 years is nothing to sneeze at.