Getting a COA registered

[SlackerDrummer]

Scott: these are often said to be the first arms known to have been hereditary, but I have never seen any proof that they were granted by the king. Evidence?

Please note that I've said "given/granted" as I wished to make a clear distinction between modern heraldic practice and how things were done in the 12th century.

When in making your case you use the same terms that apply to today's method of obtaining arms in the UK, you necessarily imply that the practice is the same or at least similar. I don't think "given/granted" was sufficiently different from "granted" so I do appreciate your disclaimer here that you do not mean it so.

But I do think that those folks who wish to bear a coat of arms should think through their reasons for adopting arms rather than seeking a grant. My real concern is that people will adopt "pleasing designs" rather than stick to the basic reason heraldry exists: as a method of identifying and uniting extended families.

Heraldry did not begin as a family identifier, extended or otherwise, though you are correct that at some point later arms were used to show familial connections. Except for matriculations of existing coats of arms, uniting extended families is certainly not the only reason grants are given today. Just look at some modern grants. Some are very individualized. You will know better than I regarding the practice of the OCHI of course, but the CoA does not grant posthumous arms. Only those posthumous grants by Lyon necessarily have any relation to extended families. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of Lyon Court can say what the ratio is of matriculations to grants of new arms.

Sure, but in a country that didn't require a license to drive, your driver's license from some other country would be just a piece of paper. In most every country except Scotland and arguably England, you don't need a license to bear arms.

I guess it could be argued that a fish is going to taste the same whether or not you had a license to catch it. Now if you have a fishing license you can take it with you where ever you go, even if you go to someplace that doesn't require a license to fish, just in case someone wants to see it.

Letters Patent are in pretty much the same boat as that fish. As you've pointed out, it's a license to bear arms; and it's probably worth having, just in case somebody wants to see it.

Scott,

It is becoming very difficult not to feel that you are being intentionally misleading on this point. All other points aside, if, where you live, no license is required to catch fish, and it is known that no license is required to catch fish where you live, and it is also known that the fish was caught by you where you live, who on Earth could possibly imagine that you would need a fishing license from another country to show off your fish? That is the most illogical argument I may have ever heard. I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you posted it so early in the morning, shall I?

EDITED TO ADD: More to the point, a Virginia fishing license doesn't allow you to fish in Kentucky.

Best,