Getting a COA registered

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I think you missed my point, but I can see where my comment could be seen as mean-spirited. I should clarify my position on this matter to some extent. I think people who live in countries with heraldic authorities should use them, whether they be granting authorities, official registries, or what have you. I don't think there is anything wrong with granted arms. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to seek a grant of arms from a foreign country, but among them is not that granted arms are real as opposed to assumed arms.

My position is actually very close to yours and Joe McMillan's; the difference being that I am of the opinion that those who live outside of the jurisdiction of a substantive granting authority are best served, legally (and possibly socially), by applying to them for a grant of arms, if they are in some way entitled to do so.

And here again, Scott, your example above is clearly misleading. In your analogy, you suggest that heraldry is sparkling wine and that granted arms are the equivalent of Champagne and that assumed arms are sparkling wines and even though they may be good sparkling wines in their own right, they are not Champagne and are therefor not, as you put it, "the genuine article."

The reason they are not the "genuine article", is that "real" champagne is defined by both law and custom (as is heraldry), and comes only from the Champagne region of France. That is the point I was hoping to make; Champagne from France, Heraldry from substantive offices of arms.

The problem with this argument is that heraldry is not sparkling wine, but simply wine.

Kenneth, I think it may be useful for me to define a couple of terms that I use, and which-- obviously-- are not-self evident from my posts. When I use the word "heraldry" I am coming down heavily on the side of the process of granting arms. To me, and probably to nobody else other than a few old codgers struggling into their tabards, the result of heraldry is "armoury", the actual design that appears on the shield along with any external additions (crest, supporters, etc.).

In your characterization that heraldry is sparkling wine, you have dismissed all the fine German wines and others from around the world that are the top of their classes, but which in no way purport to be Champagne.

That would be the case if I advocated only one heraldic authority as "valid", but I haven't done that. There are better than a dozen heraldic authorities in Europe, plus one in Canada and one more in the Republic of South Africa, and yet another in Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean. Each of these administers it's affairs according to it's own lights, with varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining a personal grant of arms (ranging from "easy" in the RSA to "impossible" in the Russian Federation), and each one is to be regarded as valid.

If tomorrow a new office of arms were to pop up in Mexico City, as a result of government initiative, it too would be regarded as "valid" by all of the other government-sponsored heraldic authorities.

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem.

As Mark Twain once said, "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people. The problem arises because it's the good people who decide who's who." It's the same in heraldry. The standards that are applied have nothing to do with the quality of armoury, and everything to do with the governmental standing of the office that created that armorial achievement. It may be unfair (and in my opinion it is) but that's how the system works.

[Joseph McMillan]

If tomorrow a new office of arms were to pop up in Mexico City, as a result of government initiative, it too would be regarded as "valid" by all of the other government-sponsored heraldic authorities.

But it wouldn't, Scott, and I'd think your own experience working for the Chief Herald of Ireland would bear that out. Look at the Sturm und Drang created by the refusal of the English College of Arms to recognize the CHI's grants, on any of a number of more or less contrived grounds, including:

- Irish arms are "only" burgher arms because the Irish constitution prohibits the grant of titles of nobility
- the CHI had no statutory basis--as if the English kings of arms do! As far as I know this refusal still stands, notwithstanding the Irish Attorney General's confirmation that the CHI now does have a statutory basis.
- the CHI will confirm arms on the basis of a mere 100 years of user, and never mind that Ulster King of Arms would do the same thing pre-1943.

Lord Lyon refuses to recognize Canadian grants because their descent is not tied to the surname.

Well before the last Spanish cronista died, the College of Arms stopped recognizing Spanish certifications of arms on the grounds that the cronista's certificates were private, notwithstanding that he was appointed pursuant to royal and government decrees.

The College of Arms refuses to recognize South African grants--so much for the excuse vis-a-vis the CHI that it had no statutory basis!

The College of Arms won't even recognize the validity of Lord Lyon's grants to persons domiciled outside Scotland.

So how is it possible to assert that every heraldic body in the world would immediately accept the validity of the actions of every other? It isn't even true within the United Kingdom!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But it wouldn't, Scott, and I'd think your own experience working for the Chief Herald of Ireland would bear that out. Look at the Sturm und Drang created by the refusal of the English College of Arms to recognize the CHI's grants, on any of a number of more or less contrived grounds, including:

- Irish arms are "only" burgher arms because the Irish constitution prohibits the grant of titles of nobility
- the CHI had no statutory basis--as if the English kings of arms do! As far as I know this refusal still stands, notwithstanding the Irish Attorney General's confirmation that the CHI now does have a statutory basis.
- the CHI will confirm arms on the basis of a mere 100 years of user, and never mind that Ulster King of Arms would do the same thing pre-1943.

Lord Lyon refuses to recognize Canadian grants because their descent is not tied to the surname.

Well before the last Spanish cronista died, the College of Arms stopped recognizing Spanish certifications of arms on the grounds that the cronista's certificates were private, notwithstanding that he was appointed pursuant to royal and government decrees.

The College of Arms refuses to recognize South African grants--so much for the excuse vis-a-vis the CHI that it had no statutory basis!

The College of Arms won't even recognize the validity of Lord Lyon's grants to persons domiciled outside Scotland.

So how is it possible to assert that every heraldic body in the world would immediately accept the validity of the actions of every other? It isn't even true within the United Kingdom!

While a great deal of squabbling with the College of Arms goes on (they can't get along with anybody, or so it seems) there is a lot more cooperation than your post would indicate, and most hiccups are resolved with a polite phone call, or a stiffly worded note from the Department of Foreign Affairs! They are also only one of several European offices of arms...

For those that may not be aware of its status, the College of Arms is a private body that holds a Crown charter allowing them, as part of the household of the Duke of Norfolk, in his capacity as Earl Marshal, to grant arms without the objection of the Sovereign. Ever since the establishment of the Office of Arms in Dublin in 1943 the Collage of Arms has wailed, pissed, and moaned, over the status of the office of the CHI. The correspondence between the Office of Arms, Dublin, and the CoA, during this period, makes for hilarious reading, especially in light of the fact that there was a war going on at the time! In its long, and ever changing litany of complaints, the CoA have constantly ignored or over-looked the fact that (1) the office of Ulster King of Arms was a national office, filled by direct appointment of the Sovereign, (2) it was never a part of the CoA; (3) that between 1922 and 1943 all of the Crown Prerogatives transferred in tact to the Irish Government, including the prerogative to grant and confirm arms; (4) that due to the transfer of Crown powers to the State, the jurisdiction and sway of the former office of Ulster King of Arms was not diminished, and indeed the office of the CHI encompasses the whole of Ireland. (5) Unlike the Offices of Arms in Edinburgh and Dublin, where the Heralds are paid as Civil Servants, the Heralds at the CoA survive on the fees they derive from their clients and thus have a vested interest in having as little "competition" as possible.

The surname issue regarding Canadian grants is a thorny issue, indeed, and one that will have to be resolved if Canadian grants are to enjoy the respect they deserve. I believe the course taken in some offices has been to selectively "pick and choose" what to accept, choosing those grants that follow accepted heraldic practice, and ignoring those that do not.

In the instance of all heraldic offices in the British Isles, the former practice of registering "foreign arms" seems to have been abolished in favour of a policy of re-granting foreign arms as and when a foreign armiger settles in their jurisdiction. The arms of foreign royals are the exception as the use of these falls directly under the control of HM, who will instruct the Heralds as to her pleasure.

Broadly speaking, the process for dealing with foreign arms in Ireland (and presumably Scotland and that "other place" ) would be to first confirm the preexisting use of the arms and then re-grant them to the petitioner.

I think it is a mistake to assume that the various offices of arms are only concerned with personal grants; a significant portion of the time in a Herald's day is taken up with all sorts of heraldic matters that require, and receive, the utmost in courteous attention from their brother (and sister) heralds in other jurisdictions. That is as good as reason as any why they would recognize and cooperate with a newly established substantive office of arms.

[SlackerDrummer]

That would be the case if I advocated only one heraldic authority as "valid", but I haven't done that. There are better than a dozen heraldic authorities in Europe, plus one in Canada and one more in the Republic of South Africa, and yet another in Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean. Each of these administers it's affairs according to it's own lights, with varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining a personal grant of arms (ranging from "easy" in the RSA to "impossible" in the Russian Federation), and each one is to be regarded as valid.

If tomorrow a new office of arms were to pop up in Mexico City, as a result of government initiative, it too would be regarded as "valid" by all of the other government-sponsored heraldic authorities.

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem.

As Mark Twain once said, "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people. The problem arises because it's the good people who decide who's who." It's the same in heraldry. The standards that are applied have nothing to do with the quality of armoury, and everything to do with the governmental standing of the office that created that armorial achievement. It may be unfair (and in my opinion it is) but that's how the system works.

But that's not the case, Scott. Focusing just on Europe for the moment, there are government authorized heraldic authorities currently operating in Belgium, Ireland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. There is one in Russia, but it is their current policy not to involve themselves with personal heraldry. There are no sanctioned heraldic authority in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. These are all states where there is, however, some level of heraldic activity. Are you really suggesting that the people who bear arms in these countries are not "valid" in doing so? Seriously?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But that's not the case, Scott. Focusing just on Europe for the moment, there are government authorized heraldic authorities currently operating in Belgium, Ireland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. There is one in Russia, but it is their current policy not to involve themselves with personal heraldry. There are no sanctioned heraldic authority in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. These are all states where there is, however, some level of heraldic activity. Are you really suggesting that the people who bear arms in these countries are not "valid" in doing so? Seriously?

Seriously? Your question leaves out a lot of very pertinent detail. There is no blanket "yes" or "no" answer, and any answer will depend on a variety of conditions:

(1) Heraldic practices are not uniform throughout Europe.
(2) Every time there is a regime change in a country, the heraldic practices are subject to alteration.
(3) In most European countries heraldry is the sole prerogative of the sovereign or head of state, be it a monarch or an elected official; in some countries, it is the sole prerogative of the government.
(4) Virtually every government in Europe has a "department of heraldry" hidden away in the bureaucracy of it's civil service. While most do not concern themselves with personal heraldry, they are actively creating civic and governmental arms on a regular, almost daily, basis.

So, and I am speaking only about the present time, in those European countries where a monarch is the head of state, there are valid heraldic authorities who function not as officers of the government, but rather as officers of state. The degree to which their function intrudes on the life of the nation is determined by a combination of national custom and law. It is wrong to compare the heraldic practices of the English monarchy to other countries, and then deduce that no heraldic authority exists, when in reality one does exist-- although it does not function along the expected lines of the English model.

In those countries that in former times were monarchies (and this includes the states which comprised the Holy Roman, Austrian, Russian and German Empires) but which, through the vicissitudes of regime changes, are no longer monarchies, the status of all armigers created under the ancient regimes remains valid, ie: substantive. If it were not so, those Irish armigers whose status is dependent upon grants made by the former Ulster King of Arms would now bear arms that would no longer be considered substantive.

In those modern states created since the end of the Second World War, where there is an active interest in armoury, but where no state heraldic authority exists to grant personal arms, then the question of assumed arms hinges on the heraldic practices of the ancient regime. If it was the custom to allow non-nobles to assume arms without undue interference, then there is no reason why that practice should not continue under the exact same rules as existed under the ancient regime. Whether or not these arms would be regarded as substantive would be based entirely on local customs and law as it existed under the ancient regime.

If, on the other hand, during the ancient regime, arms were strictly regulated and there was a prohibition on their assumption, then it would stand to reason that both culturally and historically there would be no basis for the assumption of arms and that any arms assumed, since the fall of the ancient regime, would be lacking in substance.

[Joseph McMillan]

Seriously? Your question leaves out a lot of very pertinent detail. There is no blanket "yes" or "no" answer, and any answer will depend on a variety of conditions:

(1) Heraldic practices are not uniform throughout Europe.

This is all quite true.

(2) Every time there is a regime change in a country, the heraldic practices are subject to alteration.

Also true. Sometimes the bearing of arms is outlawed altogether (France, 1790, for instance), which invalidates your statement below that "In those countries that in former times were monarchies (and this includes the states which comprised the Holy Roman, Austrian, Russian and German Empires) but which, through the vicissitudes of regime changes, are no longer monarchies, the status of all armigers created under the ancient regimes remains valid, ie: substantive."

(3) In most European countries heraldry is the sole prerogative of the sovereign or head of state, be it a monarch or an elected official; in some countries, it is the sole prerogative of the government.

Quite right that it varies from place to place, but I think the "most" is incorrect. First, most European states today take no official interest in the granting or regulation of personal arms whatsoever. This includes Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Poland, the Baltic states, and, as far as I have been able to determine, the Balkan states as well. In theory, the monarchs in Sweden and Denmark could grant personal arms in connection with ennoblement, but since neither country is making new nobles (Sweden by law, Denmark by 100 years of practice), that's more theoretical than real. Both countries do have officials who devise and record the arms of persons appointed to the highest orders of knighthood (Seraphim, Elephant, and Dannebrog), but my conversations with heraldic experts from these countries advise that these do not constitute grants in any meaningful sense of the term. In Denmark that's the Chapter of the Royal Orders (state, not government); in Sweden it's the State Herald, who works for the National Archives, which comes under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the government.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, arms are sometimes granted in connection with ennoblement, and this function is indeed vested outside the government, in both cases in the Council of the Nobility. In Belgium, the granting or registration of personal arms for other than nobles is up to the three language communities; only the Flemish actually do it. In most of the Netherlands, non-noble personal arms are neither granted nor registered; three provinces have provisions for their academies or archives to provide this service.

We know the situation in the UK (England and Scotland). In Ireland, the Chief Herald's office was subordinate to the government (and emphatically, since 1937, not to the head of state) until 2005, when the National Library became an independent agency.

In Spain, personal heraldry was formerly the business of the cronistas de armas, who were appointed by the government, not the head of state (specifically by the Minister of Justice). The last cronista with authority over personal arms died several years ago.

Slovakia grants/registers personal arms through the Interior Ministry, part of the government.

In Russia, a very few of the constituent "subjects" of the federation provide personal heraldic services.

(4) Virtually every government in Europe has a "department of heraldry" hidden away in the bureaucracy of it's civil service. While most do not concern themselves with personal heraldry, they are actively creating civic and governmental arms on a regular, almost daily, basis.

And those who do mostly place this function either under the government or under the provincial/state governments, not directly under the head of state. These include Austria (states), Belgium (language communities), France (Ministry of Culture), Germany (states), Portugal (Ministry of Planning and Territorial Administration), Slovakia (Ministry of Interior), Spain (autonomous communities), Sweden (as noted above, State Herald subordinate to Ministry of Culture), Switzerland (local option, may register with canton), and Poland (Ministry of Interior).

In the Netherlands, the High Council of the Nobility (a state but not governmental institution) grants civic and official arms.

In Russia and the three Baltic countries, civic and official heraldry is under the President.

In Ireland the situation is the same as for personal arms--CHI formerly under government, now under independent National Library, not under President.

In Italy, civic arms are granted by the President of the Republic on the advice of the Prime Minister's Public Heraldic Service. In Luxembourg, the State Heraldic Service advises local communities on arms, the community adopts them, and then registers them with the Prime Minister's office.

The Czech Republic and Georgia give their parliaments authority over civic and governmental heraldry.

For civic and official arms, that totals six under the head of state (UK, Netherlands, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), two under the legislature, and the rest either under either the national or provincial governments, or some kind of hybrid.

We cannot possibly conclude that heraldry is generally considered a "head of state" prerogative.

(FWIW, the U.S. also has an authority that devises and approves official arms at the federal level, and it's under the Department of Defense.)

So, and I am speaking only about the present time, in those European countries where a monarch is the head of state, there are valid heraldic authorities who function not as officers of the government, but rather as officers of state.

Except in Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg, and, as far as I can tell, Norway. So we have three monarchies where it's true (UK, Denmark, Netherlands), four where it's not true, and one where it's half true (Belgium). The Vatican has no heraldic office. I have no information on Andorra, Liechtenstein, or Monaco.

In those countries that in former times were monarchies (and this includes the states which comprised the Holy Roman, Austrian, Russian and German Empires) but which, through the vicissitudes of regime changes, are no longer monarchies, the status of all armigers created under the ancient regimes remains valid, ie: substantive. If it were not so, those Irish armigers whose status is dependent upon grants made by the former Ulster King of Arms would now bear arms that would no longer be considered substantive.

See above for the general statement. As to Ireland, the continuing validity of rights conveyed under letters patent (which would include Ulster's grants of arms) was ensured by specific provisions of the 1922 and 1937 constitutions, so Ireland is not a good case to demonstrate that such rights automatically survive these transitions.

We also have to keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of armigers in virtually every country on the Continent were never created as such by any state authority, so the fact that arms continued to be arms through most transitions doesn't support the distinction between the value of substantive and non-substantive arms, whatever the latter term means in a non-British context.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Joe, your post really covers a lot of territory-- mostly concerned with personal arms, and who grants 'em, and who doesn't. In every instance you've cited you are referring to the prerogative of "government" to regulate the use of arms-- be they personal, corporate, civic, or governmental. The final result is that with regards to "governments" granting personal arms, "some do, some don't". Nowhere in your post have I seen anything that says that a government can't grant personal arms, merely that for what ever reason, they choose not to.

Looking at this from my perspective it seems that in some jurisdictions personal arms are generously granted; in others they are only rarely granted; in others no personal grants are made, and existing personal arms are either tolerated or ignored. I can't find an instance-- today-- where they are officially outlawed. In the past, under some regimes, personal arms have been outlawed, as you have pointed out:

Sometimes the bearing of arms is outlawed altogether (France, 1790, for instance), which invalidates your statement below that "In those countries that in former times were monarchies (and this includes the states which comprised the Holy Roman, Austrian, Russian and German Empires) but which, through the vicissitudes of regime changes, are no longer monarchies, the status of all armigers created under the ancient regimes remains valid, ie: substantive."

Simply because something is outlawed, for example "modern art" in Nazi Germany, its character is not changed. A successor state can outlaw "the old religion", tear down its places of worship, forbid the holding of religious services, and arrest those wearing its vestments-- but that does not cancel the substantive nature of the ordination of the surviving clergy, even if the ordination of future clergy is prevented; the same applies to arms. The state may prohibit or outlaw their use, but it can not erase the substantive nature of those arms which pre-date its foundation no matter how it may try.

As an aside, in present day France, to the best of my knowledge, there is no prohibition on the bearing or public use of arms; indeed, armorial bearing are protected before the civil courts, and assumed arms, if found to infringe upon older arms, are not tolerated.

...most European states today take no official interest in the granting or regulation of personal arms whatsoever[/U].

As far as granting personal arms is concerned you are correct. However in the countries you've named, all armigers have recourse to the courts to protect the property rights inherent in their personal arms. Germany, as you have previously mentioned, actually has defined the legal status of arms in the body of it's civil law.

In Ireland, the Chief Herald's office was subordinate to the government (and emphatically, since 1937, not to the head of state) until 2005, when the National Library became an independent agency.

I know what you mean, but your time line is off; the physical Office of Arms in Dublin Castle was under the control of the Irish Government from 1922; its incumbent, the Ulster King of Arms, remained under the control of the head of state (a sort of join "shared powers" after 1937 due to the unique position of the nature of the office) until it was transferred to the state in 1943. After a brief period in bureaucratic limbo the office moved to the Department of the Taoiseach, then to the Department of Education, where it was finally shifted to the National Library. In a bureaucratic shuffle in 2005 the National Library was placed on the same footing as the National Museums of Ireland; in common with the museum it now has its own state-funded budget, and management is by an independent board of directors. The library staff, and the Chief Herald of Ireland, remain government employees. Neither the function nor the duties of the office have been changed.

In Spain, personal heraldry was formerly the business of the cronistas de armas, who were appointed by the government, not the head of state (specifically by the Minister of Justice). The last cronista with authority over personal arms died several years ago.

In 1951 the document appointing Don Vicente de Cardenas as Cronista, was signed by Francisco Franco in his capacity as both Chief of State and Head of Government, a nicety that prevented anyone from accusing him of usurping the position of the exiled king. I am told that following the death of Cardenas there was a bit of a squabble between two of the king's cousins who both wanted the job, with the result that the king has elected to leave the post vacant. (Don Vicente, by the way, was appointed for life.)

(quoting MoR) "Virtually every government in Europe has a "department of heraldry" hidden away in the bureaucracy of it's civil service. While most do not concern themselves with personal heraldry, they are actively creating civic and governmental arms on a regular, almost daily, basis."

And those who do mostly place this function either under the government or under the provincial/state governments, not directly under the head of state.

I never said they did, nor did I mean to imply so, hence my use of the word "government" with a small 'G'.

We cannot possibly conclude that heraldry is generally considered a "head of state" prerogative.

Actually Joe, as expressed above, I never said that heraldry was, exclusively, reserved to the head of state; rather I suggested that it was an either/or situation, with the responsibility for heraldry accruing to either the head of state or the head of government. In both instances the function and authority of the heraldic "office", within the terms of its mandate, is usually placed in a bureaucratic "pigeon hole" for ease of administration.

(FWIW, the U.S. also has an authority that devises and approves official arms at the federal level, and it's under the Department of Defense.)

As you have pointed out, in 1919 President Woodrow Wilson (head of state and chief executive of the government) authorized the War Department to create an Institute of Heraldry; in 1957 the authority of the Institute of Heraldry, managed by the US Army, was expanded to cover all branches of the military and federal government.

So, simply because a state-sponsored heraldic authority does not, at present, concern itself with personal heraldry, there is no reason why, if the government of the day so chooses, that it could not decide to grant personal arms, which would then be of a substantive nature.

See above for the general statement. As to Ireland, the continuing validity of rights conveyed under letters patent (which would include Ulster's grants of arms) was ensured by specific provisions of the 1922 and 1937 constitutions, so this really can't be cited as evidence that such rights automatically survive these transitions.

Actually it was the 1921 Treaty that provided for the slow and gradual devolution of Crown offices to the Irish Government; the subsequent Irish constitutions merely reinforced the on-going commitment of the then current regime to protect the property rights off all the people and institutions in Ireland. Even had the government of the day made the decision not to continue the practice of the Ulster office, it would have had no effect on the status of Ulster's grants. Were one to argue to the contrary, then it would have to be said that during Cromwell's republic, all previous grants made by the CoA became non-substantive; further, that with the removal of the Stuarts, all grants made under their regime lost their status as substantive arms. Clearly this just isn't so.

We also have to keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of armigers in virtually every country on the Continent were never created as such...

Joe, I can appreciate what you are driving at-- that some people (the nobility) early on assumed arms as a prescriptive right. And that's true; however this armorial free-for-all lasted for a relatively short period of time, basically from the middle of the 12th century to the beginning of the 15th century and involved only a tiny portion of the European population. During the 15th century arms were clearly seen as the significant mark of nobility (ie: property ownership) and "the powers that be" across Europe began to turn the screws on the "free adoption" of arms. By about 1600 virtually all European arms are being recorded, and by 1700 it could be argued that all arms are now substantive, in so far as the owner can prove a legal right to those arms, other than the assertion that he has borne them "since time, immemorial." In other words we enter a period of at least 300 years where government exercises an absolute right to control the assumption of arms by its subjects/citizens.

so the fact that arms continued to be arms through the transition period also doesn't help support the distinction between the value of substantive and non-substantive arms, whatever the latter term means in a non-British context.

I think "substantive" --in any heraldic context-- means a legally provable right to ownership. "Value" in this same context means, I presume, the worth ascribed to the arms by the person who bears those arms, and in the wider sense, whether or not society as a whole views them as having any intrinsic or social value (as opposed to an artistic value).

My personal, and probably old-fashioned, view on arms is that the moment they become entered in a register maintained by the government for the sole purpose of recording of arms, they become substantive as and from the date of registration.

[Joseph McMillan]

As Mark Twain once said, "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people. The problem arises because it's the good people who decide who's who." It's the same in heraldry. The standards that are applied have nothing to do with the quality of armoury, and everything to do with the governmental standing of the office that created that armorial achievement.

Another thought...sorry not to do this all in one message: this is very definitely not the view taken by the heraldic community on most of the Continent. In Poland for example, none of the arms of the Szlachta were originally granted by anyone, and no Polish noble would think more highly of a coat of arms for having been subsequently recorded by the Austro-Hungarian or Russian chancellery.

[SlackerDrummer]

And here again, Scott, your example above is clearly misleading. In your analogy, you suggest that heraldry is sparkling wine and that granted arms are the equivalent of Champagne and that assumed arms are sparkling wines and even though they may be good sparkling wines in their own right, they are not Champagne and are therefor not, as you put it, "the genuine article."

The reason they are not the "genuine article", is that "real" champagne is defined by both law and custom (as is heraldry), and comes only from the Champagne region of France. That is the point I was hoping to make; Champagne from France, Heraldry from substantive offices of arms.

The problem with this argument is that heraldry is not sparkling wine, but simply wine.

Kenneth, I think it may be useful for me to define a couple of terms that I use, and which-- obviously-- are not-self evident from my posts. When I use the word "heraldry" I am coming down heavily on the side of the process of granting arms. To me, and probably to nobody else other than a few old codgers struggling into their tabards, the result of heraldry is "armoury", the actual design that appears on the shield along with any external additions (crest, supporters, etc.).

Here again I have to disagree with your logic. If you are arguing process, then regardless of your preference for Champagne, Champagne is not the only wine nor is it the original method of making it.