Post Your Granted, Assumed or Desired Arms

[piperdbh]

Personally, it's nice to see the Lutheran Rose being used. I can't say I care much for the ELCA's logo these days.

I agree, Todd, Luther's rose has more depth and texture, even as a flat drawing, than the cross-and-globe the ELCA uses now, which sort of reminds me of the SBC's cross-and-globe:

I once wanted to make a Luther rose from wooden cutouts, each painted the appropriate color, which would be glued on top of each other so the cross would project from the heart which would project from the rose. I never got around to it.

[FatherWilliam57]

cajonscot: Quite right, I think the ELCA logo is hideous. The local Episcopal (now Anglican) priest in town and I have been doing joint Bible studies and worship services together for the past 8 years (not to mention both of us joining together with the local Roman parish for Stations of the Cross during Lent and Advent Lessons and Carols).

piperdbh: "You've switched pews, but you're still in the same church." Although Lord Lyon would not be involved, the CoA would be. Unless you can prove you are a direct descendent of the original armiger and are entitled to those particular arms, it's a non-starter. There is no such thing as a "family coat-of-arms," at least not the way you are looking at it. England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have very specific rules concerning the inheritance of arms. In very general terms, a coat-of arms in those country can only belong to one individual at a time (other members of the family who are entitled must difference the arms in one way or another in order to use them). If one wishes to honor one's ancestors from the "old country" through the use of heraldry, then one should also honor the system under which those ancestors were granted their arms. General rule of thumb: If they were not your grandfather's arms, you are probably not entitled to use them (99.9999999 times out of a hundred). Now, if you believe you are in some distant way related to the original armiger, you could use those arms as a starting point for creating arms which you can assume. Can't know for sure until you check it out, but I am going to assume you have no basis to procure a grant from the CoA. (I suggest you check out the section entitled "Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States Recommended by the American Heraldry Society" on their website for some guidance in this matter. Full disclosure: I am the current President of said Society.)

As to your question concerning affiliation: Yes, I am an ELCA pastor. I am a 1979 graduate of Thiel College in Greenville, PA (perhaps you have heard of the Thiel Choir, of which I belonged all four years) and the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg in 1990 (made a quick "lay-over" in the U.S. Navy between college and seminary).

Heraldry is a great "science" and a great "art," with a rich and varied tradition throughout the world. Study it, research it, embrace it, and enjoy it!

[piperdbh]

Thanks, Pr. Henry. You've answered my questions. Switching to PM mode now.

[FatherWilliam57]

Okey, fine.

[Joseph McMillan]

piperdbh: "You've switched pews, but you're still in the same church." Although Lord Lyon would not be involved, the CoA would be. Unless you can prove you are a direct descendent of the original armiger and are entitled to those particular arms, it's a non-starter. There is no such thing as a "family coat-of-arms," at least not the way you are looking at it. England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have very specific rules concerning the inheritance of arms. In very general terms, a coat-of arms in those country can only belong to one individual at a time (other members of the family who are entitled must difference the arms in one way or another in order to use them). If one wishes to honor one's ancestors from the "old country" through the use of heraldry, then one should also honor the system under which those ancestors were granted their arms.

This rule is not peculiar to the British Isles. It is the basic rule everywhere heraldry is used: if you're not a direct descendant of the original bearer of the arms, you have no right to them. There are rare exceptions, but they usually require (or required) official approval, either royal or parliamentary.

General rule of thumb: If they were not your grandfather's arms, you are probably not entitled to use them (99.9999999 times out of a hundred).

Why? English and most other arms (except Scottish) are automatically inherited and passed on by all legitimate sons ad infinitum. This is so well established that it's even in the classic legal textbooks like Coke and Blackstone.

Now, if you believe you are in some distant way related to the original armiger, you could use those arms as a starting point for creating arms which you can assume.

If the relationship is direct, no matter how many generations, you can use the arms as you find them, but you should be able to prove the descent, not just speculate on it.

If by distant we mean that it was an uncle or cousin who was the original bearer of the arms, then yes, you need to difference them somehow.

[FatherWilliam57]

Greetings, Joseph. Perhaps I misspoke. The only point I was trying to make is that it is pretty long odds that a "bucket shop" set of "family arms" would apply to any given individual who happens to share the same name. There is no substitute for researching one's own family history, rather than simply guessing (or hoping) that a given set of arms you may run across may be used with impunity.

BTW, have you acquired a kilt yet?