Getting a COA registered

[davidlpope]

[A caveat: I'm of British ancestry and live in an area of the US which was originally a British colony. As a result, my interest in heraldry is almost exclusively focused on English and Scottish heraldic traditions.]

I've been rolling around this general issue for quite a while in my mind- having considered assuming/matriculating/registering/petitioning for arms for several years. I find it's a difficult topic because arms have similarities to other things (tartans, trademarks/copyrights, etc.) but aren't close enough to any of them to make analogies really helpful.

What I keep coming back to, though, time and time again, is the origin of arms. As I understand it, arms were originally a means of identifying knights in battle. If that is correct, it seems that heraldry has always been "discriminating"- i.e. one had to be a knight to possess arms, not some "mere" common soldier. It seems likely that the idea of arms as a symbol of "social status" continued long after knights fighting in armor became obsolete (much like the vestigial gorget was the symbol of an officer long after armor was done away with and modern military officers rate swords).

William Harrison, writing of England in the final quarter of the sixteenth century, recognizes then that arms still functioned as a symbol of social status, even while noting that "upwardly mobile" mens' desire to attain this "social standing" often outpaced their ability to sustain such a lifestyle. Here's an excerpt where he discusses the types of pursuits which lead one to being considered a "gentleman" and thus "eligible" for a grant of arms:

Whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who so abideth in the university, giving his mind to his book, or professeth physic and the liberal sciences, or beside his service in the room of a captain in the wars, or good counsel given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service, and many gay things) and thereunto being made so good cheap be called master, which is the title that men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after.

Parsing this paragraph produces this list of "qualifications" that would lead to one being considered for a grant of arms:

1. Lawyer/Attorney/Soliciter/Barrister/Advocate
2. University Graduate (Graduate degree required?)
3. Physician or University Professor?
4. Commissioned officer in the military
5. The equivalent of a commissioned officer in government service/the diplomatic service
6. Vocation doesn't involve manual labor
7. "Looks and acts" like a gentleman
6. Financial wherewithal to pay for a grant of arms!!!!

In my mind the tension, then, is between assumed arms (where there are no restrictions on WHO bears arms or the quality of the arms, themselves) and a restrictive system where arms are granted by some official body which (at least in theory) judges the worthiness of those petitioning for arms.

I guess subscribing to a qualification list such as Harrison's might lead to one being labelled as "snobbish". One the other hand, I'm not sure that the alternative presented by assumed arms (the armigerous ditch-digger bearing a "lucky charms" design?) is any better......

Cordially,

David