Happy 4th of July - Below are various posts I have saved re:coat of arms, wearing of the tartan, clan badges, crests, etc. I would like someone on this list to take this information, add their own research and perhaps make a condensed statement that we could post to the FERGUS Research Worldwide website - any volunteers? Yes, as you can read here there are different points of view presented and then also a strict format as to using a coat of arms . . . a subject for us to address whether we have our own long-standing opinions and/or our fondness for claiming a FERGUS coat of arms - there are several. Who is willing to jump in - OK to include sentiment here also. Remember I am just presenting information I have received . . . no need to become distressed over this topic . . . but, there is room for discussion, just not heated discussion:) Cynthia The whole essence of the science of heraldry is that coats of arms are hereditary, and that only those who are entitled to them can carry them. While it is true that I could make application to the College of Heralds for a coat of arms, and they would make one up for me, from then on the only people who would be entitled to that coat of arms would be my descendants. For all practical purposes therefore, you can assume that they are right. There is a particular List for those who want to take these things seriously. The various Heralds - and they are well enough documented for me not to have to say anything about them, are charged with agreeing to whether or not someone should have a coat of arms. In Scotland it is a criminal offence to use a coat of arms which you are not entitled to. Ulster King of Arms is the Chief Irish Herald. You have got it sorted out (in theory) if you have a Herald's Certificate. -------- 1878 Burke's Peerage - Sir Edmund Burke compiled the information from data furnished to him by the persons/families listed. I'm not sure if he verified it thru the College of Heralds or not. He should say one way or the other in the introduction. In the narrative, it should give the arms holders genealogy and current family. So all you have to do is to show a direct descent thru first sons to you of the person described as entitle to the arms described in Burke's. If you can show that you are the first son and that all your patrilineal ancestors were first sons, you've got a shot at claiming title to those arms. On the other hand, if you're descended from any but a direct line of first sons, forget it. ---------- The inheritance of those (official) arms is, in England, to all male legitimate issue of the original grantee. Unless the male line dies out and then the arms goes through the last lot of daughters to their male children, if the daughters married armigers of course. All heirs of the Head of the Family are entitled to display the 'arms' with the cadets showing their labels or differencing. When the "Head" dies the heir inherits the 'arms' without the differencing. Females in England do not normally show a label as a mark of difference There being no seniority between daughters in English common law. A daughter displays her fathers 'arms'. In England there is no requirement for differencing. Though in Scotland there is a need as it is part of Lyon's charter to deal with such. The only differences practiced regularly in England these days are for children of the sovereign. Now for the big battalions: First Fox-Davies says (p.490) in his "A Complete Guide to Heraldry": 'The use of these difference marks is optional'. Though he does go on to say that 'it is neither courteous nor proper for a cadet to display the arms of the head of his house; beyond this, the matter is usually left to good taste' Second in a grant of arms from the College of Arms I read: 'to be borne and used for ever hereafter by xxxx and by other issue of yyyy [his father] according to the Laws of Arms'. In other words the same arms were granted both to X and to his brothers. ------- You belong to a clan, if you have traced your ancestry along a surname line, a surname for which there IS an acknowledged Clan, and in the process you discover either- a. an ancestor of yours with that surname was formally recorded as a Clan member e.g. if that ancestor properly owned a Banner ["arms"], or b. your search for proven ancestry grinds eventually to a halt, in lands that are well documented as the "homeland" of that Clan. Note, only a minority of Scots surnames are Clan names. Most Scots surnames have no Clan connection at all. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That said, the Clan societies today are friendly folk and if you elect to associate with a Clan, then your surname alone would probably be sufficient for you to be eligible for membership of that Society. It is within the authority of a Clan Chief to "adopt" incomers who have no biological connection to the Clan membership. It was always thus. If your surname is Murphy or Olejnik or..... and if you prove to be a worthy friend of the Clan and its Chief then you might very well be taken into the Clan. This is NOT a common practice but it can, and does, happen. -------- LORD LYON OF SCOTLAND. http://www.heraldica.org/ The above sight will answer all your questions about Coats of Arms and the right to bear them. Also who has a right to existing ones. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/lordlyon.htm This page contains documents and analysis pertaining to the judicial powers of Lord lyon in Scotland, in particular relating to nobility, chiefships of clans, and precedence. http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/scother1.html#S1 This sight is devoted to Scottish Heraldry and will even tell you the cost of getting your own coat of arms. --------- Your possible right to bear Arms of that style [hence Armigerous] could be explored upon application to Lord Lyon. It would be your duty to demonstrate a proven descent from the armigerous guy I invented above. reply: I thought this was the case, but it appears it is not so. You have to show that for a number of generations your family was composed of honorable members - no need to have armigerous ancestors. Scots manners: How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable! :~) ---------- Certainly in the UK there is never such a thing as a "Whatevername" Coat of >Arms. Somebody named "Whatevername" may well have a Coat of Arms, and his descendants will probably base their own Coats of Arms upon it. Just because one has the same name as someone who legitimately has Arms does not entitle one to make any use of those Arms what so ever. ---------- I have been wondering if there are any "generational limits" to one's ability to "claim" clan kinship and rights to wear a tartan. No such limits. The law in Scotland is reasonable, much more so than English law. English law is argued on <precedent> ["we did it wrong before so we are obliged to do it wrong again"]; Scottish law is argued on <principle> ["oh dear, we did it wrong before; never mind there's a good chance we'll get it right this time"] Laws on kinship are in the jurisdiction of Lord Lyon, King at Arms. His court is one comprised of reasonable folk, and kinship if proved in a scholarly way will win out. He rules with authority upon the manners and rules of Scots dress but that is not his principal duty. There is no limit in years or generations; there is no biological switch that abruptly terminates your descendancy from an early clansman. The real arguments arise, if you should act on your grannie having said [for example] that your Hutchison ancestor was spouse of/ or child of an armigerous guy, say a particular MacDonald, Lord of the Isles. You might then want to carry the banner and arms of that man, like a "family crest". This is both illegal and ill- mannered. Your possible right to bear Arms of that style [hence Armigerous] could be explored upon application to Lord Lyon. It would be your duty to demonstrate a proven descent from the armigerous guy I invented above. After the Court accepted your claim [they might reject it!] then you would be sent a design for the banner etc suitably differenced. This is the work of a heraldic draftsman who alters the early design, to account for your own position in the family tree, and also your occupation. A lawyer might have a book in the design of his banner; a physician the usual twisted snakes; a soldier a sword or firearm. ----------- Arms. A coat or arms are the personal property of the owner who have a valid grant from the Lord Lyon at the request of the Crown. They are not clan property. As property they can be disposed off, but they are entailed, and there are the strictest rules. There is a court of the land, the Lord Lyon's court which not only can decide these matters, but impose penalties of misuse. In highland dress it is correct to use the crest of the Chief of the clan, surrounded by a belt and buckle bearing the motto of the clan, as a cap badge. There is no such thing as a family or clan crest. It is the property of the Chief alone and while it is correct to display it in a cap badge, it is not correct to display it on note paper, plate etc. The above comes from "Scots Heraldry" by Innes of Learney, the Late Lord Lyon. You can argue with his son the present one. There is no necessary blood line between a chief and a member of the clan. A clansman us a supporter of the Chief. You can join a clan with the permission of the Chief. I am a member of a clan, and wear their tartan on occasions because on occasions I act as a member of the household of the Chief. Generally highland dress either looks right or it is wrong. It is also very expensive. At a funeral today with a military background there was a bugler and a piper from a Scottish regiment. The Bugler wore trews, the piper a kilt, no 2 dress jacket (cut away to show the sporran.) After the Last Post and Reveille, the piper marched on to the Flowers of the Forest, played Amazing Grace at the grave, and marched off to Highland Cathedral. Of course the piper looked magnificent. Though of course for his full glory he should have been in his dress jacket. This was basically a military occasion. With the increased national pride in Scotland there is much more wearing of the Kilt. People do on occasions wear the kilt with more casual clothes, and there are an increasing number wearing the great Kilt. Regular wearers of the Kilt are often seen as being the great eccentrics. Kilts are however usual dress for weddings, usually hired. Many people choose their football team tartans, and therefore there is a constant supply of ex hire ones of these tartans on the market. That is probably the best way to get one. The Prince Charles is usually known as a Bonnie Prince Charles, or a Bonnie Prince. In Slang all I will say is that a "Prince Charles" is not an item of men's apparel. I will say no more. A BPC is worn with a lace frill at the neck, and is the most striking of Highland dress. What causes the amusement here (in Scotland) are the attempts to give hard and fast rules for something which most people are relaxed about, and a casual view of what is very strictly controlled - Clan badges. The Plant badges are very old, and basically used to rally the clan. Remember most clan battles were small affairs, and people would have known who they were close to in the hand to hand part of the fight. A little thought about how battles were actually fought, and who the enemy were would solve people's problems. As far as having to get permission to buy, if it is for sale then you can buy it. There are some tartans which can only be worn by certain people - often the Royal family, but sometimes the people who work for a particular family. These are simply specially made, and the design is copyright. A good example of a tartan for a family is that often the coats and plus fours of a ghillie or game keeper will be made out of "Estate Tartan" -----------