Position:Home>Genealogy> Do Americans need to have a coat of arms granted to them?

Armorial grants from the College of Arms do very little for those outside of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland!. There are actually very few countries that have heraldic authorities that have control over coats of arms!. In Scotland there is the Court of the Lord Lyon, in Ireland there is the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland, in South Africa there is the Bureau of Heraldry, and in Canada there is the Canadian Heraldic Authority!.

There are varying degrees of control and regulation in these different jurisdictions and they even use different terminology from one to another (grants, matriculations, registrations)!. In most of the world, people are free to assume whatever coat of arms they want!. In the United States, a coat of arms that is assumed has just as much validity as one granted or registered by an armorial authority!.

Registrations and the like are nice because they offer some protection against usurpation, but that's about it!. More information about registrations can be found at the American Heraldry Society's webpage!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Coats of arms were designed so knights could tell each other apart when they were buttoned up in their suits of armor!. They were given to individuals, not families!. If, for instance, every knight named "Smith" used the same coat of arms, there would be a crowd of knights riding around with the same coat of arms painted on their shields!. It would be as confusing as a basketball game where both sides wore blue uniforms and all the players were number 12!.

The eldest legitimate son inherits his father's Coats of Arms!. He passes it on to his eldest legitimate son, and so on; that's where the myth of a "Family" Coat of arms comes from!. Only one person can PROPERLY (See below) have a given coat of arms at one time!. People who sell T-shirts and coffee mugs, however encourage the gullible to believe Coats of Arms are for a surname!.

If your surname is Smith and you come from Shropshire, you may find that Sir Albert Smith, Sir Bruce Smith and Sir Charles Smith, all from Shropshire, all had C of A!. If you do your research, you may find you descend from Sir Charles, but you are nowhere close to being the eldest son of the eldest son of the !. !. !.!. Now comes the question - Is using his coat of arms proper!? Opinions differ!.

Some say it is like demanding "your" room in the ancestral Smith estate in Shropshire, from the current owners - ridiculous and illegal!.

Some say it is like wearing a "Regimental" tie if you didn't serve in that regiment!. (Land's End sells those by the thousands to Americans!. I would never buy one!.)

Some say it is like wearing a "Scotch Plaid" shirt when you don't belong to that clan!. (LL Bean sells tens of thousands of those; I have "Lindsay" and "Black Watch" myself, although "Black Watch" is a regiment, not a clan!.)

Some say it is as harmless as wearing a Detroit Tigers baseball cap when you didn't play for the team, or a UC Berkeley T-shrt when you didn't attend the University!. (Or an Ohio State one, but as long as you're going to wear a University T-shirt, why not the finest!?)

So, there's the facts and three opinions about using a "Family" coat of arms!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

A "real" coat of arms was issued to ONE person--some knight during the Crusades who was awarded such for his bravery in battle, etc!. Just because some people today have the SAME name (yada yada yada), that the coat of arms awarded to this knight is THEIR coat of arms, too!.
The ONLY way to prove it is by finding a DIRECT lineage back to that Sir John Doe or whatever the hay his name was!.

http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/College_Of_!.!.!.
"The College of Arms, or Heralds' College, is an office regulating heraldry and granting new armorial bearings for England, Wales and Northern Ireland!. It was founded in 1484 by King Richard III, and is a corporate body consisting of the professional heralds who are delegated heraldic authority by the British monarch!. Based in London, the College is one of the few remaining government heraldic authorities in Europe!. Scotland has its own heraldic authority in Lord Lyon King of Arms and the Court of the Lord Lyon!. The College also grants arms to citizens of other Commonwealth countries that do not have their own heraldic authorities!. (Canada has its own heraldic authorities, the Canadian Heraldic Authority)!. The College fields many requests from people attempting to demonstrate descent from an armigerous (arms-bearing) person; a person descended in the male line (or through heraldic heiresses) from such an ancestor may be reissued that ancestor's arms (with differencing marks if necessary to distinguish from senior-line cousins)!.
Arms may not be granted without the consent of the Earl Marshal, as of 1673, an hereditary office held by the Duke of Norfolk!. The Kings of Arms grant coats of arms by "letters patent" (or a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person)!. Before they can even consider the granting of arms, an application must be made to the Earl Marshal, and a fee paid!. The Kings of Arms are then authorized in their patents of appointment to grant (with the consent of the Earl Marshal) to "eminent men" because back in the old days, the test was one of wealth or social status!. Any man eligible for a coat of arms had to be a "gentleman" (in its original and strict signification, denoted a man of good family, meaning nobleman in the French sense, and long confined to the peerage in Great Britain!. To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man with an income derived from property, a legacy or some other source, and was thus independently wealthy and did not need to work!.")
IF an application is granted and the coat of arms made, it is for all descendants of the original owner, but the right to bear it can ONLY go through the MALE line--sons can pass it to sons with a different mark of Cadency (see article mentioned in sources)--but daughters CANNOT pass it to her daughters, etc!.


(Since the United States and Mexico are not British Commonwealth countries, citizens there are not legally able to have a coat of arms from the College of Arms--at least the way I read the article!. Canada, as it says above, has its own Heraldic Authority)!.


Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

In the USA, it is perfectly legal and proper to adopt a coat of arm!. It goes against heraldic tradition to adopt arms that are not yours, such as so-called "surname family crests!."

There are those in the USA who think the government must grant a coat of arms in order for it to be legitimate!. This is just false!. Most European and Nordic countries have long and popular heraldic traditions in which people assumed arms and passed them on to their heirs without any government regulation!. The British Isles are the exception!.

An oft cited UK site FALSELY states: "For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past!."

This statement is true only within the jurisdiction of the College of Arms and The Court of the Lord Lyon, i!.e!. in England, Scotland, and Wales!. In the USA, because there is no heraldic regulation, ALL people are free to assume arms!. It's the same in most European countries!.

In Canada, there is no law against assuming arms, but registration with the heraldic authority there offers some protection similar to trademark protection!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

No, we don't need a coat of arms at all!.

In order to obtain one you must apply to the heraldry authority of the country involved!. Other than that you can make up your own and claim it as yours!.

Now, there are some American who have gain wealth and prominence who have had a coat of arms granted to them by the College of Arms for a price!. They are not hereditary!.

There are some in the American South that have the one their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago!. They usually don't display them!. They aren't any good for buying groceries!. They usually have them stuck away in a closet or their attic!.

Actually back in the 50s on the TV show, "What's my Line" Bennet Cerf who was president of Random House was a panelist!. He was telling about someone he knew who was involved in genealogy!. This person was in the home of a southern gentleman and asked to see his coat of arms which the man drug out of his closet!. The man Cerf knew asked the man if he ever displayed it!. He stated, "I did for awhile, but it wasn't very high!. Then I bought me a door stop!."

See the link below from the College of Arms and another from the National Genealogical Society!.

http://www!.college-of-arms!.gov!.uk/Faq!.ht!.!.!.

http://www!.ngsgenealogy!.org/comconsumerp!.!.!.

There is an American Heraldry Society but the U!.S!. really doesn't recognize heraldry so I don't know how meaningful it is!.

To display a coat of arms that does not belong to you is considered usurpation of another's identity and a person can open themselves up for litigation in most countries!.

Edit: If you are a student, I will tell you what your parents would, you don't laugh at people in their own homes if they have one of those walnut plaques on their wall!.

The unfortunate thing about them is that people buy them and when they decide to do their family history, they have been thrown off the track!. The family history that comes with them does not belong to everyone with the same surname!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

"Real"!?

This used to be determined by the Crown - and so American renunciated that when the had their revolution!.

That being said, there are many American families descended from Anglo/Celtic families and display the coats of arm of them!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---