Getting a COA registered

[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.