Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any authority? Same
question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:51:42 PM UTC-4, rock.v...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any authority?

Same question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

The process is called "re-matriculation", and yes, it has to done if you live in a nation with an heraldic authority... and wish to be legal. The Lord Lyon of Scotland recommends re-matriculation every 3 generations. Yes, it costs money. The price of
Fame, I guess.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 07:45:44 UTC+1, Scott55 wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:51:42 PM UTC-4, rock.v...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any authority?

Same question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

The process is called "re-matriculation", and yes, it has to done if you live in a nation with an heraldic authority... and wish to be legal. The Lord Lyon of Scotland recommends re-matriculation every 3 generations. Yes, it costs money. The price of

Fame, I guess.

I agree that in Scotland any changes to a coat of arms, by younger sons for example, have to be matriculated at the Court of the Lord Lyon, which exerts strict controls over the types of difference for each generation.

But in England there is no such control. Once there has been a grant of arms, the College of Arms lets the grantee's descendants get on with it. After the visitations ended, the heralds didn't get paid for policing the use of arms. So long as you didn'
t go upsetting any other armigers, you were probably not going to be bothered. New quarters could be added, for example, and so long as you had a plausible explanation for those who commented, no one would get upset. I can quite imagine that an
addition to a coat or crest could be made without raising an outcry. On the other hand, this is outside my period of specialisation and I cannot quote any examples from the 1800s where it was actually done.

Peter Howarth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 at 12:27:45 UTC+2, Peter Howarth wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 07:45:44 UTC+1, Scott55 wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:51:42 PM UTC-4, rock.v...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any authority?

Same question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

The process is called "re-matriculation", and yes, it has to done if you live in a nation with an heraldic authority... and wish to be legal. The Lord Lyon of Scotland recommends re-matriculation every 3 generations. Yes, it costs money. The price of

Fame, I guess.

I agree that in Scotland any changes to a coat of arms, by younger sons for example, have to be matriculated at the Court of the Lord Lyon, which exerts strict controls over the types of difference for each generation.

But in England there is no such control. Once there has been a grant of arms, the College of Arms lets the grantee's descendants get on with it. After the visitations ended, the heralds didn't get paid for policing the use of arms. So long as you didn'

t go upsetting any other armigers, you were probably not going to be bothered. New quarters could be added, for example, and so long as you had a plausible explanation for those who commented, no one would get upset. I can quite imagine that an addition
to a coat or crest could be made without raising an outcry. On the other hand, this is outside my period of specialisation and I cannot quote any examples from the 1800s where it was actually done.

Peter Howarth

Thanks for the explanation :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Howarth <pgrhowarth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 07:45:44 UTC+1, Scott55 wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:51:42 PM UTC-4, rock.v...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any authority?

Same question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

The process is called "re-matriculation", and yes, it has to done if you live in a nation with an heraldic authority... and wish to be legal. The Lord Lyon of Scotland recommends re-matriculation every 3 generations. Yes, it costs money. The price of

Fame, I guess.

I agree that in Scotland any changes to a coat of arms, by younger sons for example, have to be matriculated at the Court of the Lord Lyon, which exerts strict controls over the types of difference for each generation.

But in England there is no such control. Once there has been a grant of arms, the College of Arms lets the grantee's descendants get on with it. After the visitations ended, the heralds didn't get paid for policing the use of arms. So long as you didn't go upsetting any other armigers, you were probably not going to be bothered. New quarters could be added, for example, and so long as you had a plausible explanation for those who commented, no one
would get upset. I can quite imagine that an addition to a coat or crest could be made without raising an outcry. On the other hand, this is outside my period of specialisation and I cannot quote any examples from the 1800s where it was actually done.

Peter Howarth

Where do differencing and cadency come into this?

I assume one is free to use the conventional marks for the Nth son,
but what about in different generations?
It's all very well to understand what the 2nd,3rd,and 4th sons of the 1st baronet are supposed to blazon...but what about their corresponding nephews,great-nephews,etc. who are younger sons of the 2nd,3rd,4th...baronets? And the younger sons of all the younger sons?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 01:31:41 UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:

Peter Howarth wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 07:45:44 UTC+1, Scott55 wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:51:42 PM UTC-4, rock.v...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi guys,

if the direct male descendent of someone granted a Coat of Arms wished to alter it, by adding an extra charge, for example, in the early 1800s, would he have had to do that via the College of Heralds, or could he just go ahead without any

authority? Same question if he wished to keep the Coat but change or alter the Crest?

Thanks

Rock

The process is called "re-matriculation", and yes, it has to done if you live in a nation with an heraldic authority... and wish to be legal. The Lord Lyon of Scotland recommends re-matriculation every 3 generations. Yes, it costs money. The price

of Fame, I guess.

I agree that in Scotland any changes to a coat of arms, by younger sons for example, have to be matriculated at the Court of the Lord Lyon, which exerts strict controls over the types of difference for each generation.

But in England there is no such control. Once there has been a grant of arms, the College of Arms lets the grantee's descendants get on with it. After the visitations ended, the heralds didn't get paid for policing the use
of arms. So long as you didn't go upsetting any other armigers, you were probably not going to be bothered. New quarters could be added, for example,
and so long as you had a plausible explanation for those who commented, no one
would get upset. I can quite imagine that an addition to a coat or crest could be made without raising an outcry. On the other hand, this is outside
my period of specialisation and I cannot quote any examples from the 1800s where it was actually done.

Peter Howarth

Where do differencing and cadency come into this?

I assume one is free to use the conventional marks for the Nth son,
but what about in different generations?
It's all very well to understand what the 2nd,3rd,and 4th sons of the 1st baronet are supposed to blazon...but what about their corresponding nephews,great-nephews,etc. who are younger sons of the 2nd,3rd,4th...baronets?
And the younger sons of all the younger sons?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the family. I'm the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, and therefore 'head of the family' (if such a thing exists). We have decided as a family that, since the Royal Family recognises the right of the
eldest child to inherit whether boy or girl, we will apply the same principle to our coat of arms and allow daughters to inherit and to difference. I used a blue label, and my two brothers had a red crescent and a gold mullet. The idea was that my
children would use blue differences and the brothers' children red and gold differences respectively. But the second child of the second brother would not use a red crescent like his father, but a red mullet. Similarly, if the third brother had had a
third child, they would have used a gold martlet. What happens after that is up to them, I won't be around. In any case, I suspect that they won't be interested and will treat the whole subject as a waste of time. They'll probably be right.

Peter Howarth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 7:31:41 PM UTC-5, Louis Epstein wrote:

Where do differencing and cadency come into this?

I assume one is free to use the conventional marks for the Nth son,
but what about in different generations?
It's all very well to understand what the 2nd,3rd,and 4th sons of the 1st baronet are supposed to blazon...but what about their corresponding nephews,great-nephews,etc. who are younger sons of the 2nd,3rd,4th...baronets?
And the younger sons of all the younger sons?

I forget if it's LL or the COA that recommends re-matriculation every three or so generations. LE just gave a pretty good rationale on why.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-4, 3ARwun wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 7:31:41 PM UTC-5, Louis Epstein wrote:

Where do differencing and cadency come into this?

I assume one is free to use the conventional marks for the Nth son,
but what about in different generations?
It's all very well to understand what the 2nd,3rd,and 4th sons of the 1st baronet are supposed to blazon...but what about their corresponding nephews,great-nephews,etc. who are younger sons of the 2nd,3rd,4th...baronets?
And the younger sons of all the younger sons?

I forget if it's LL or the COA that recommends re-matriculation every three or so generations. LE just gave a pretty good rationale on why.

It's the LL that recommends re-matriculation every 3 years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)