Getting a COA registered

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

A trivial point on this, more significant on what follows: it's unlikely that Lyon would devise a new coat of arms with a bordure of any kind, since in Scots heraldry bordures are almost always used to difference for cadency these days.

I am not certain what the current Lyon would do in this specific case, but speaking from experience, I would regard the last provable ancestor as an indeterminate cadet coming off the stem arms; thus it would seem reasonable to assign a bordure to indicate that position. I agree that in the instance of a de novo grant the use of a bordure would be highly unlikely.

He'd be more likely to devise arms differenced in other ways from the stem arms of the name.

Indeed he might, but then again other factors can enter into the decision such as the existing number and placement of charges on the field, the desire of the client, and the risk of creating arms that too closely resemble those of another family.

But your grandfather couldn't be an indeterminate cadet of the original grantee, because if he were indeterminate that would mean you hadn't proven descent from the person who was subject to Lyon's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he might indeed be assigned, as you say, the ancestor's arms...

It is quite easy to prove descent, and often impossible to prove how many male children occurred in each generation of that descent. That being the case it may be virtually impossible to determine precise cadency from the original ancestor being used as the foundation of the grant. Precise cadency can only be determined when all of the offspring of an ancestor are know. This may only occur with the petitioners father or grandfather, or may reach back into the mists of time.

And in the United States, of course, there is neither a granting authority nor any legal provision for recognizing the validity of foreign grants of arms or protecting whatever rights those grants conveyed in the country of origin. That means that in the United States, an English or Scottish grant of arms has the same substantive status as arms assumed at will.

Does it? I wonder? I would think that at the end of the day, if someone with a substantive grant of arms brought a suit against someone who had merely assumed the same coat that they would be on firmer ground re: ownership of the disputed devise. That said, the concept of "first past the post" might equally apply, especially if the proprietor of the assumed arms could prove usage ante-the date of the granted arms. Hmmm....

On the broader issue of the status of arms in the United States, and what they mean or don't mean, I think the classic exposition is the statement issued by the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society in 1914, which is linked from http://www.americanheraldry.org/page...Main.Documents . Those interested in exploring this more may also want to look at the Washington-Barton letters and the article by H. S. Ruggles, linked from the same page.

Looking forward to more discussions here, even if I would barely know which end of a kilt is up.

[SlackerDrummer]

And in the United States, of course, there is neither a granting authority nor any legal provision for recognizing the validity of foreign grants of arms or protecting whatever rights those grants conveyed in the country of origin. That means that in the United States, an English or Scottish grant of arms has the same substantive status as arms assumed at will.

Does it? I wonder? I would think that at the end of the day, if someone with a substantive grant of arms brought a suit against someone who had merely assumed the same coat that they would be on firmer ground re: ownership of the disputed devise. That said, the concept of "first past the post" might equally apply, especially if the proprietor of the assumed arms could prove usage ante-the date of the granted arms. Hmmm....

First of all you are talking about the assumption of the same coat of arms that exists in a grant from a foreign authority. At the AHS we stress the importance of due diligence in creating a unique and original coat of arms if you are going to assume arms. So let's assume someone has usurped (intentionally or not) arms that were granted by a foreign authority to another person. Where would they sue and on what grounds?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So let's assume someone has usurped (intentionally or not) arms that were granted by a foreign authority to another person. Where would they sue and on what grounds?

Presumably the suit would take place in the jurisdiction where the tort took place. One party (presumably the substantive armiger) would have to establish that some sort of injury or loss occurred because the assumptive armiger was trespassing on the intellectual property rights that are inherent within a personal mark of identification, such as a coat of arms or a cattle brand.

Other than in Scotland, where the mis-use of arms is a criminal offense (defrauding the government of statutory fees), a suit of this sort would be heard in civil court.

[SlackerDrummer]

Presumably the suit would take place in the jurisdiction where the tort took place. One party (presumably the substantive armiger) would have to establish that some sort of injury or loss occurred because the assumptive armiger was trespassing on the intellectual property rights that are inherent within a personal mark of identification, such as a coat of arms or a cattle brand.

Other than in Scotland, where the mis-use of arms is a criminal offense (defrauding the government of statutory fees), a suit of this sort would be heard in civil court.

Exactly. One would have to establish that damages occurred which would be very difficult unless 1) the grantee's arms were used in commerce and 2) the usurper's use of the arms had an impact on the grantee's business. And even then, I'm not sure a court would rule in favor of the grantee unless the actual image of the arms used by the usurper was one lifted from the grantee. I'm not sure, based on current American copyright or trademark law, that an original emblazonment owned by the usurper would be seen by the court as being the same as the grantee's.

[WVHighlander]

SlackerDrummer,

So the bottom line question is this: "If I assume a Coat of Arms and register it with an American institution can I wear my crest with an eagle feather in a bonnet at Clan events?"

[macwilkin]

SlackerDrummer,

So the bottom line question is this: "If I assume a Coat of Arms and register it with an American institution can I wear my crest with an eagle feather in a bonnet at Clan events?"

I would say no, since that is a custom associated with Scottish heraldry.

T.

[piperdbh]

I would say no, since that is a custom associated with Scottish heraldry.

T.

...and quite possibly with the Game Warden.

[WVHighlander]

Par conséquent, il y a la réponse, je pense.

[SlackerDrummer]

So the bottom line question is this: "If I assume a Coat of Arms and register it with an American institution can I wear my crest with an eagle feather in a bonnet at Clan events?"

I have thought about this and for me it doesn't matter whether or not I can. I wouldn't. Wearing a feather with your crest is a Scottish custom and is meaningless outside of Scottish heraldry. My arms are not Scottish arms as Scottish arms come from Lord Lyon.

To that end, of course, one should only ever consider wearing the silver feathers that are part of one's cap badge to any events in this country unless they are foreigners and the feathers came with them from home. Just possessing bald or golden eagle feathers in this country is illegal unless you have a permit* and carries a possible fine of up to $5000 and a year in jail, regardless of how meaningful they are in your ancestral customs. That goes for everyone including clan chiefs.

*Permits for eagle feathers are only available to American Indians for religious purposes.

[WVHighlander]

I have thought about this and for me it doesn't matter whether or not I can. I wouldn't. Wearing a feather with your crest is a Scottish custom and is meaningless outside of Scottish heraldry. My arms are not Scottish arms as Scottish arms come from Lord Lyon.

To that end, of course, one should only ever consider wearing the silver feathers that are part of one's cap badge to any events in this country unless they are foreigners and the feathers came with them from home. Just possessing bald or golden eagle feathers in this country is illegal unless you have a permit* and carries a possible fine of up to $5000 and a year in jail, regardless of how meaningful they are in your ancestral customs. That goes for everyone including clan chiefs.

*Permits for eagle feathers are only available to American Indians for religious purposes.

You gents are taking me to literally in the eagle feather question. I wasn't planning on plucking an eagle it was more a rhetorical question in regards to the CoA.