Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coat of Arms/heraldy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Coat of Arms/heraldy

    I'm in the process of having my stationery redesigned and as my business name was my paternal grandmother's maiden name, I wondered whether there are restrictions on using an associated Coat of Arms, heraldic symbol or motto?

    I'm sure someone here will know.

  • #2
    Originally posted by hattie View Post
    I'm in the process of having my stationery redesigned and as my business name was my paternal grandmother's maiden name, I wondered whether there are restrictions on using an associated Coat of Arms, heraldic symbol or motto?

    I'm sure someone here will know.
    The simple answer is it is unlawful to use an achievement one has no rights to.

    Heraldic symbols have been around for years and as such are not copyright just as a commonly used individual word is not copyright.

    Mottos are a difficult subject as some have been incorporated into trade marks and are therefore covered by the laws concerning trademarks.

    A longer answer about achievements (coats of arms) is (under English heraldry) if one is directly descended from an armiger there is a possibility one may display their achievement. Note it does not matter whether one is male or female for this to apply.
    Cheers
    Guy
    Guy passed away October 2022

    Comment


    • #3
      I think I understand this - thank you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hattie...............thanks for asking this question as I'd forgotten something I wanted to ask ages ago....lol

        OH's gg grandfather went missing in Australia in 1855. He was wearing a ring with his maternal grandmother's crest on it.
        I wondered if he was "properly" entitled to it and if so, would his son have been entitled to the crest, or would any family member???

        It was the Eyre crest .......I'm not sure of the difference btween a crest and a coat of arms.

        Or.................could the ring have been his grandmother's (or her father's)???

        Comment


        • #5
          Libby

          A coat of Arms is personal to one person - think "coat" lol, you don't wear someone else's coat, you wear your own, and you recognise it as unique when it is hanging on the peg in the cloakroom!

          By (heraldic) law, the ENTITLEMENT to bear a coat of Arms is passed down the direct line, subject to legitimacy - and the right is not automatic, but has to be registered with the Court of Heralds. But each new coat of arms will be different from any other gone before in some slight respect and if you are skilled in reading them, they are a family pedigree.

          A coat of arms may incorporate a family crest, which will be common to all coats in that family. It does not indicate the right to bear arms, but if used legitimately, may indicate descent from an armigerous family.

          I have never heard of any prosecutions issuing from the wrongful use of Arms and Crests, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any! I should imagine that anyone trying to use the Queen's personal coat of arms would be slapped quite hard.

          It's a fascinating subject and I'm going to study it in depth one day.........

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks OC.....so a family crest could be used by any family member, or one who "inherited" it????? as opposed to a coat of arms????

            I'm more used to the wearing of tartans....lol

            Comment


            • #7
              I have my ggfathers signet ring and that has the crest on it - i wear it and i haven't been locked up in the Tower yet !! All his brothers used the same crest.

              The only bit you have to have an absolute right to is a coat of arms - unless we're talking about a made up sunday paper one.......

              I was in a jewellers in Chester a while ago and they were selling signet rings with crests simply as design items - can't see the point if it doesn't relate to you, bit sad really

              R : ))

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                Libby

                A coat of Arms is personal to one person - think "coat" lol, you don't wear someone else's coat, you wear your own, and you recognise it as unique when it is hanging on the peg in the cloakroom!
                No, No, No. Please not that common misinformation.
                In the Scottish system and often in European countries an achievement belongs to one person. In English heraldry it is different, even though the dumbed down version on the College of Arms may make one think differently.

                Under the English system an achievement is not owned by one person and it is not owned by a family but rather it is held in stewardship by the head of a family.
                Not only may the head of a family legally display the achievement but also his and occasionally her descendants.
                For example all un-married female children may display the achievement of their father as of course can all male children.
                This fact has been proved for centuries.


                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                By (heraldic) law, the ENTITLEMENT to bear a coat of Arms is passed down the direct line, subject to legitimacy - and the right is not automatic, but has to be registered with the Court of Heralds. But each new coat of arms will be different from any other gone before in some slight respect and if you are skilled in reading them, they are a family pedigree.
                Sorry but again this is wrong under the English system but correct for the Scottish system.
                Also under English heraldry of marks of differencing need ever be applied.


                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                A coat of arms may incorporate a family crest, which will be common to all coats in that family. It does not indicate the right to bear arms, but if used legitimately, may indicate descent from an armigerous family.
                A crest is simply the device that is displayed on the helmet, it does not form part of an achievement and is often changed during the history of a family.

                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                I have never heard of any prosecutions issuing from the wrongful use of Arms and Crests, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any! I should imagine that anyone trying to use the Queen's personal coat of arms would be slapped quite hard.

                It's a fascinating subject and I'm going to study it in depth one day.........

                OC
                The last UK prosecution for unlawful display of "arms" was that of Mohamed Fayed back in January 2000, but that was under the Scottish system.
                Under the English system the last prosecution was way back in 1920 or perhaps a few years earlier when a Buckinghamshire woman was prosecuted for displaying arms whennot entitled.
                Cheers
                Guy
                Guy passed away October 2022

                Comment


                • #9
                  I should also correct that other misinformation before it rears its ugly head.
                  Anyone (under the English system) may claim the right to arms by prescription.
                  This means under the English system of heraldry one has the right to go out and design a new achievement and use it without involving the College of Heralds.
                  This right has been in place as long as English heraldry itself
                  Cheers
                  Guy
                  Guy passed away October 2022

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Guy

                    You mean that an unmarried female would display exactly the same Arms as her father,with no differencing marks, nothing to indicate that she was a daughter, not a son, for instance?

                    That is not how I read the "rules". I have two instances in my tree where the male line failed and a married daughter requested the right to bear the Arms. This was granted. Her Arms were identical to those of her father, but with the device (can't remember what that is, offhand) to show that she was the daughter.

                    Those were HER Arms. Her sons used Arms quartered of their mother and their father and, as far as I know, their descendants still use the quartered Arms, with differences to reflect their position in the family.

                    As the original intention of Arms was so that a man would be instantly recognisable on a battlefield by his unique coat of Arms (and so would his brothers, sons, etc) then it would be a bit daft if everyone in the family was tricked out in identical Arms.

                    I can see that a whole family, including knights and retainers etc, would process behind a flag which bore the man's Arms (therefore announcing his household) - but his brothers and so on, riding behind that over-all flag, would have their own variations of the family Arms, surely.

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      For those of us whose eyes glaze slightly at the very mention of the subject, Guy,
                      • what do you call the bit that is stuffed as full of animals & birds as the decoration on an Edwardian lady's hat? and
                      • what do you call the bit below all argent & sable & rampant & puissant?
                      I know that the "bit below" helped sort out who one of my ancestors actually was - it showed that her first husband had been a third son. He died young, so her descendants assumed they were related to her second husband. So even in the 1600s people weren't paying the attention they might have done to heraldry.
                      Phoenix - with charred feathers
                      Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I have always understood that no lady other than a sovereign Queen bears arms on a shield, but always on a lozenge. So it should be easy to distinguish the daughters from the sons.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                          Guy

                          You mean that an unmarried female would display exactly the same Arms as her father,with no differencing marks, nothing to indicate that she was a daughter, not a son, for instance?
                          Females use a lozenge to display "arms" therefore their is no confusion. The "arms" would be the exact achievement displayed by her father.

                          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                          That is not how I read the "rules". I have two instances in my tree where the male line failed and a married daughter requested the right to bear the Arms. This was granted. Her Arms were identical to those of her father, but with the device (can't remember what that is, offhand) to show that she was the daughter.
                          As a daughter of an armiger she should have displayed the arms on a lozenge or (if married) impaled on the shield of her husband.
                          The shield and the lozenge are simply the vehicle for the emblazonment of the design.
                          It could just as easily be displayed on a surcoat, a banner, a square or circle or oval.

                          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                          Those were HER Arms. Her sons used Arms quartered of their mother and their father and, as far as I know, their descendants still use the quartered Arms, with differences to reflect their position in the family.

                          As the original intention of Arms was so that a man would be instantly recognisable on a battlefield by his unique coat of Arms (and so would his brothers, sons, etc) then it would be a bit daft if everyone in the family was tricked out in identical Arms.
                          Yes there is no law to prevent marks of cadency or differencing but at the same time there is no law or rule that requires cadets to use marks of difference.

                          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                          I can see that a whole family, including knights and retainers etc, would process behind a flag which bore the man's Arms (therefore announcing his household) - but his brothers and so on, riding behind that over-all flag, would have their own variations of the family Arms, surely.

                          OC
                          In the earliest times brothers were often landowners in their own right and owed an allegiance to the king. They would in that case use a different achievement rather than a differenced achievement.
                          In other cases cadets would use a label, but it was their free choice to do so and not a requirement.
                          Cheers
                          Guy
                          Guy passed away October 2022

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                            For those of us whose eyes glaze slightly at the very mention of the subject, Guy,
                            • what do you call the bit that is stuffed as full of animals & birds as the decoration on an Edwardian lady's hat? and
                            • what do you call the bit below all argent & sable & rampant & puissant?
                            I know that the "bit below" helped sort out who one of my ancestors actually was - it showed that her first husband had been a third son. He died young, so her descendants assumed they were related to her second husband. So even in the 1600s people weren't paying the attention they might have done to heraldry.
                            The mantling or lambrequin falls away on either side of the escutchion. It is an artistic representation of the cloth or textile covering to help prevent the helmet in the heat of the sun. It also had the advantage of deadening any sword cut (thus was often displayed hacked or torn to reflect bravery).
                            Cheers
                            Guy
                            Guy passed away October 2022

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So, if I have this right, the shield or lozenge (my "bit below") is the eschutchion, while all the fancy stuff on top is the mantling or lamrequin.

                              So what, in visual terms, is the coat of arms and what is the achievement?
                              Phoenix - with charred feathers
                              Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X