Can you identify, by blazon, the ultimate armiger, of this grant? (surname Turner)

[Bron Santiago]

Vairy Gules and Argent on a Pale Or three Trefoils Proper [alternatively, three Trefoils Vert]

I blazoned this myself, so I apologise for any errors in syntax.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Bron Santiago
Vairy Gules and Argent on a Pale Or three Trefoils Proper
[alternatively, three Trefoils Vert]
I blazoned this myself, so I apologise for any errors in syntax.

What is the grant that you refer to?

What country was the grant made in?

What period of time, roughly, was the grant made?

[Bron Santiago]

Thank you, Mr Powys‐Lybbe for you reply.

I apologise if I misuse the word ‘grant’. My question is the name of the man to whom arms, with such a shield, were confirmed, his place of residence, and in what year.

I realise I blazoned only the shield (possibly poorly). I blazoned this from an image online at this address.

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/turnlink.html (Scroll down to find the shield with the field of Vairy Gules and Argent.)

I thought the arms with such a shield would be recorded at the college in Ireland, possibly Scotland or England, but it may be an unrecorded US creation by Joanne M. Elliott. Still, who was the ultimate armiger and who is the current armiger?

Before I was born, no‐doubt guided by a bucket‐shop , my family fallaciously used, undifferenced, the arms confirmed upon a heralds’ Visitation in 1620 to one Humphrey Turner of Thorverton Town, Devonshire, England, blazoned Sable a chevron Ermine between three Fer‐de‐Molines Or on a chief Argent a Lion passant Gules a Lion passant Gules holding in his dexter Paw a Laurel Branch Vert the Crest.

We are not descended from Humphrey Turner of Devonshire! Why cannot bucket‐shops and all forms of heraldic chicanery be outlawed‽ My hope is that an ancestor of mine found these arms in an armory at a public library, and spent no money on this foolishness!

I am curious about true armigers bearing the surname Turner.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Bron Santiago
Vairy Gules and Argent on a Pale Or three Trefoils Proper
[alternatively, three Trefoils Vert]
I blazoned this myself, so I apologise for any errors in syntax.

What is the grant that you refer to?
What country was the grant made in?
What period of time, roughly, was the grant made?
--
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Bron Santiago]

Ug, I capitalised 'pale', an ordinary.

[Bron Santiago]

Thank you, Mr Powys‐Lybbe for you reply.

I apologise if I misuse the word ‘grant’. My question is the name of the man to whom arms, with such a shield, were confirmed, his place of residence, and in what year.

I realise I blazoned only the shield (possibly poorly). I blazoned this from an image online at this address.

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/turnlink.html (Scroll down to find the shield with the field of Vairy Gules and Argent.)

I thought the arms with such a shield would be recorded at the college in Ireland, possibly Scotland or England, but it may be an unrecorded US creation by Joanne M. Elliott. Still, who was the ultimate armiger and who is the current armiger?

Before I was born, no‐doubt guided by a bucket‐shop , my family fallaciously used, undifferenced, the arms confirmed upon a heralds’ Visitation in 1620 to one Humphrey Turner of Thorverton Town, Devonshire, England, blazoned Sable a chevron Ermine between three Fer‐de‐Molines Or on a chief Argent a Lion passant Gules a Lion passant Gules holding in his dexter Paw a Laurel Branch Vert the Crest.

We are not descended from Humphrey Turner of Devonshire! Why cannot bucket‐shops and all forms of heraldic chicanery be outlawed‽ My hope is that an ancestor of mine found these arms in an armory at a public library, and spent no money on this foolishness!

I am curious about true armigers bearing the surname Turner.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Bron Santiago
Vairy Gules and Argent on a Pale Or three Trefoils Proper
[alternatively, three Trefoils Vert]
I blazoned this myself, so I apologise for any errors in syntax.

What is the grant that you refer to?
What country was the grant made in?
What period of time, roughly, was the grant made?
--
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In case you are unused to this my replies are interleaved with yours.
This has the advantage that my replies are more likely to answer or
refer to your points.

Post by Bron Santiago
Thank you, Mr Powys‐Lybbe for you reply.
I apologise if I misuse the word ‘grant’. My question is the name of
the man to whom arms, with such a shield, were confirmed, his place of
residence, and in what year.

Short of, at some expense, going to the College of Arms, there are two
published versions of the 1620 visitation:

1. Vivian's, published in 1895, which is considerably added to with
other information, not all of which may be valid. But he does give the
blazons.

2. The Harleian publication of which the early ones were rather
unreliable, but this one seems authentic.

From the first, page 741, the blazon is as you say (though you have
added in the crest's blazon as well). And from the second, page 290,
the armiger giving the details of the family is Nicholas Turner.

Post by Bron Santiago
I realise I blazoned only the shield (possibly poorly). I blazoned
this from an image online at this address.
http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/turnlink.html (Scroll
down to find the shield with the field of Vairy Gules and Argent.)

The blazon you give has little to do with the illustration on this page.
And you may care to note that the left hand illustration has a knight's
helm and no crest.

Post by Bron Santiago
I thought the arms with such a shield would be recorded at the college
in Ireland, possibly Scotland or England, but it may be an unrecorded
US creation by Joanne M. Elliott. Still, who was the ultimate armiger
and who is the current armiger?

The words 'ultimate armiger' suggest that you have picked up some of the
misunderstandings of these bucket shop heraldry merchants. They like to
get you to think there are single coats of arms for a surname. This is
rubbish. For instance, Burke's Armory (pub 1884) gives over 50
instances of Turners with arms, many of them different (pages 1037 to
1039). By and large surnames are not core to heraldry, inheritance is:
arms descend in families. Families are not those with the same surname.
Turner is a very common surname and different and totally unrelated
families will have adopted that name at different times, probably from
occupations such as wood-turner.

Post by Bron Santiago
Before I was born, no‐doubt guided by a bucket‐shop , my family
fallaciously used, undifferenced, the arms confirmed upon a heralds’
Visitation in 1620 to one Humphrey Turner of Thorverton Town,
Devonshire, England, blazoned Sable a chevron Ermine between three
Fer‐de‐Molines Or on a chief Argent a Lion passant Gules a Lion
passant Gules

(end of blazon of shield)

Post by Bron Santiago
holding in his dexter Paw a Laurel Branch Vert the Crest.

(blazon of the crest.

Post by Bron Santiago
We are not descended from Humphrey Turner of Devonshire! Why cannot
bucket‐shops and all forms of heraldic chicanery be outlawed‽

Their activity is either fraud or theft but they invent all sorts of
dodgers to cover that up: I've heard bucket practitioners say that they
are merely providing arms to represent a person of the same name who the
modern family is adopting as a head of family!

Post by Bron Santiago
My hope is that an ancestor of mine found these arms in an armory at a
public library, and spent no money on this foolishness!

I would doubt it. Burke's armory, which is a seriously useful
collection, but not serious about the heraldry of families, makes it
obvious that most surnames have loads of very different arms and there
is no such concept of 'arms of a name'.

Post by Bron Santiago
I am curious about true armigers bearing the surname Turner.

In which countries? In some countries there is no pretence of control
over heraldry and all arms are true; the United States of America is one
of these.

In England there are two sets of books you can go through:

(a) All the visitations for the armigers in the 16th and 17th centuries,
mostly published by the Harleian Society.

(b) The three volumes of the Grantees of Arms published by the Harleian
Society as Vol 57 in 1916; this covers new grants from pre-1600 to 1898.

Most of these are available as digital files somewhere on the internet;
see Chris Phillips' super site <www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk> and search
for 'visitations'.

Or you can access the IHGS database including armigers at:
<http://www.achievements.co.uk/family_tree_names/index.php/>

In Scotland there are the two volumes of the "Ordinary of Scottish Arms"
by James Balfour Paul and David Reid respectively.

<snip for brevity>

[Bron Santiago]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
In case you are unused to this my replies are interleaved with yours.
This has the advantage that my replies are more likely to answer or
refer to your points.

Yes, thank you.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

My question is the name of the man to whom arms, with such a [Vairy
Gules and Argent] shield, were confirmed, his place of residence, and
in what year.

Short of, at some expense, going to the College of Arms, there are two
…
From [Vivian’s], page 741, the blazon is as you say (though you have
added in the crest’s blazon as well).

I apologise that I mentioned the arms blazoned on Vivian’s p. 741, as this obfuscates my question.

My question was: if anyone had Vivian’s — or another reference on the self, or in his or her computer — in which to find mention of the arms of which I inquire (those with the shield Vairy Gules and Argent). If no one has, then it is of little matter, as it was a question of pure curiosity.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

I realise I blazoned only the shield (possibly poorly). I blazoned
this from an image online at this address.
http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/turnlink.html

The blazon you give has little to do with the illustration on this page.
And you may care to note that the left hand illustration has a knight's
helm and no crest.

Again, I apologise that I mentioned the blazon on Vivian’s p. 741. I believe, if you refer to my earliest message and this image Loading Image... , you will find Vairy Gules and Argent on a pale Or three Trefoils Proper a passable blazon.

I can read blazon very well, but cannot write very well.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

I thought the arms with such a shield would be recorded at the college
in Ireland, possibly Scotland or England, but it may be an unrecorded
US creation by Joanne M. Elliott. Still, who was the ultimate armiger
and who is the current armiger?

The words ‘ultimate armiger’ suggest that you have picked up some of the
misunderstandings of these bucket shop heraldry merchants. They like to
get you to think there are single coats of arms for a surname. This is
rubbish. For instance, Burke's Armory (pub 1884) gives over 50
instances of Turners with arms, many of them different (pages 1037 to
arms descend in families. Families are not those with the same surname.
Turner is a very common surname and different and totally unrelated
families will have adopted that name at different times, probably from
occupations such as wood-turner.

Yes, I am cognisant that arms belong to individuals and not to surnames, and that Turner is a very common occupational surname, born by countless unrelated families.

By ‘ultimate armiger’ I mean the individual to whom arms were first granted (in Great Britain or Ireland in this case) and from whom the living armiger (if any) descends, through male primogeniture, or through male primogeniture from a hereditary heiress. Other documented male‐line descendants may bear the arms as granted, differenced, and so are not, as I put it, the living armiger.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Why cannot bucket‐shops and all forms of heraldic chicanery be
outlawed‽

Their activity is either fraud or theft but they invent all sorts of
dodgers to cover that up: I’ve heard bucket practitioners say that they
are merely providing arms to represent a person of the same name who the
modern family is adopting as a head of family!

Adopting as a head of family ? What rubbish. Only one living individual per jurisdiction
may bear unique arms at a given time.

I consider the United States the de facto (not de jure) jurisdiction of the College of Arms (London), the Court of the Lord Lyon, the Chief Herald of Ireland, and all other European states with colleges. An individual may bear arms in the United States which conflict with the arms of an armiger in a country with pretence of control over heraldry, but I consider this in very bad taste!

Because of the US history of panEuropean immigration, I do not think arms in the United States should conflict with arms in any part of the world where European heraldry has currency. It is still appropriate for arms in different jurisdictions in Europe to conflict.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

I am curious about true armigers bearing the surname Turner.

In which countries?

In all countries of the world.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
In some countries there is no pretence of control over heraldry and
all arms are true; the United States of America is one of these.

Regardless of US law, I do not consider inherited arms true if the bearer cannot document descent from an individual who rightly bore those arms in a country with pretence of control over heraldry. I do not consider undifferenced arms true unless the bearer can document male primogeniture descent from, or male primogeniture descent from the hereditary heiress of, an armiger in a country with pretence of control over heraldry (other than Poland).

I think it is appropriate for individuals in the United States to bear assumed arms, (and that these arms are true) if they have made public declaration that the arms are assumed, and they have done due‐diligence to demonstrate that the arms do not conflict with the arms of any armiger in any country with pretence of control over heraldry (including Canada) nor conflict with any assumed arms which have been publicly declared as assumed in any country without pretence of control over heraldry.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
(a) All the visitations for the armigers in the 16th and 17th centuries,
mostly published by the Harleian Society.
(b) The three volumes of the Grantees of Arms published by the Harleian
Society as Vol 57 in 1916; this covers new grants from pre-1600 to 1898.
Most of these are available as digital files somewhere on the internet;
see Chris Phillips' super site <www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk> and search
for 'visitations'.
<http://www.achievements.co.uk/family_tree_names/index.php/>
In Scotland there are the two volumes of the "Ordinary of Scottish Arms"
by James Balfour Paul and David Reid respectively.

Wonderful, thank you for the excellent resources.

and for arms granted to residents of Ireland during personal unions of Ireland with England — or the personal union of Ireland with Great Britain — or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ?

[Bron Santiago]

Adopting as a head of family ? What rubbish. Only one living individual per jurisdiction
may bear unique arms at a given time. If a family wants to 'adopt a head of family', then they would necessarily bear the arms of the putative "head of family" DIFFERENCED, and each member of the assuming family would need to bear the assumed arms with a unique difference, and unique to all other assuming bearers and to any living armigerous bearers.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Bron Santiago
Adopting as a head of family ? What rubbish. Only one living
individual per jurisdiction may bear unique arms at a given time.

This is not the point. The vendors' theory is that those who buy arms
from a bucket-shop are not 'bearing arms'. They are recognising someone
else who does indeed bear those arms.

This point was discussed at length in the 1954 case in the English Court
of Chivalry in relation to the common practice of selling, and buying,
products with the royal arms on them. Remember that in times past this
was thought to be high treason and one of my ancestresses was even
executed for such an offence. The Surrogate in that court commented
after a long ramble about many forms of display of arms: "... use or
display in such circumstances would not be a ground for intervention by
this Court" (p. 61 of the published "The Manchester Palace of Varieties
Limited" case of 1954).

Post by Bron Santiago
If a family wants to 'adopt a head of family', then they would
necessarily bear the arms of the putative "head of family"
DIFFERENCED, and each member of the assuming family would need to bear
the assumed arms with a unique difference, and unique to all other
assuming bearers and to any living armigerous bearers.

See above about whether the arms are 'born' or not.

Further not all countries or jurisdictions take differencing seriously.
It is only Scotland where that is written in to the constitution, so to
speak. For the last perhaps three centuries, the English slowly, or
quickly, dropped differencing. It is only in the last 40 years or so
that modern English grants have had any mention of differencing, thereby
giving rise to a suggestion that practices in England were different and
are attempted to be covertly changed.

Personally I don't like differences: they are ugly.

[Bron Santiago]

Please see my longer, earlier message of 24 July.

I agree that differences are ugly.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Bron Santiago
Adopting as a head of family ? What rubbish. Only one living
individual per jurisdiction may bear unique arms at a given time.

This is not the point. The vendors' theory is that those who buy arms
from a bucket-shop are not 'bearing arms'. They are recognising someone
else who does indeed bear those arms.

Agreed.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
This point was discussed at length in the 1954 case in the English Court
of Chivalry in relation to the common practice of selling, and buying,
products with the royal arms on them. Remember that in times past this
was thought to be high treason and one of my ancestresses was even
executed for such an offence. The Surrogate in that court commented
after a long ramble about many forms of display of arms: "... use or
display in such circumstances would not be a ground for intervention by
this Court" (p. 61 of the published "The Manchester Palace of Varieties
Limited" case of 1954).

I enjoyed reading this!

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Bron Santiago
If a family wants to 'adopt a head of family', then they would
necessarily bear the arms of the putative "head of family"
DIFFERENCED, and each member of the assuming family would need to bear
the assumed arms with a unique difference, and unique to all other
assuming bearers and to any living armigerous bearers.

See above about whether the arms are 'born' or not.

Agreed.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Further not all countries or jurisdictions take differencing seriously.
It is only Scotland where that is written in to the constitution, so to
speak. For the last perhaps three centuries, the English slowly, or
quickly, dropped differencing. It is only in the last 40 years or so
that modern English grants have had any mention of differencing, thereby
giving rise to a suggestion that practices in England were different and
are attempted to be covertly changed.

So younger sons would have no arms ?

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Personally I don't like differences: they are ugly.

Agreed.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 24 Jul at 18:52, Bron Santiago <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Post by Bron Santiago
So younger sons would have no arms ?

No. All sons inherit their parents arms or, in Scotland, their parents'
right to bear arms.

Can inheritance apply in the USA when there are no rules of heraldry?

Fox-Davies in his Complete Heraldry made his views on inheritance by all
sons quite clear, I can't give the page number as that book is not
beside me currently.

The effect of historical English practice is that arms are not unique to
individuals but to families, being inherited by (male line) descent. I
wonder how long it will be before the inheritance is extended to female
lines as well: Canada already allows this, I believe.

[Bron Santiago]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Bron Santiago
So younger sons would have no arms ?

No. All sons inherit their parents arms or, in Scotland, their parents'
right to bear arms.

Interesting.

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Can inheritance apply in the USA when there are no rules of heraldry?
Fox-Davies in his Complete Heraldry made his views on inheritance by all
sons quite clear, I can't give the page number as that book is not
beside me currently.
The effect of historical English practice is that arms are not unique to
individuals but to families, being inherited by (male line) descent. I
wonder how long it will be before the inheritance is extended to female
lines as well: Canada already allows this, I believe.

Not only allows, mandates: that is, it is illegal to deny inherited arms to female children.

I believe all people, regardless of sex, tend to bear arms on an escutcheon (and not a lozenge or cartouche), though some Aboriginal Canadians of the far north bear arms on an Inuit‐style escutcheon, rendered as a perfect circle.

[Bron Santiago]

I wrote a reply to Mr Powys‐Lybbe on Thursday, 24 July, 2014 at 18:52:09 UTC+1, to which he has not yet responded.

When I repost my reply, it is not shown, without need of a click, because it is a quote.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Bron Santiago
I wrote a reply to Mr Powys‐Lybbe on Thursday, 24 July, 2014 at
18:52:09 UTC+1, to which he has not yet responded.

Your replies are not to me but to a debating chamber, though without a
chairman. Everyone is addressed and anyone may reply or not as they
think fit.

If you wished to reply to me, you should use -e-mail. But then you will
find that I am prejudiced in favour of public debate and like to
stimulate others to contribute.

Post by Bron Santiago
When I repost my reply, it is not shown, without need of a click, because it is a quote.

I suspect you are getting into trouble because you are using Google's
interface and not a proper Newsreader client. If you like newsgroups, I
would recommend that you go for a proper client program and a proper
feed from a proper Usenet server.

But you don't have to.

One advantage of most client newsreaders is that they store the posts
locally for a limited period of time [1] so that you can see all
contributions in each subscribed newsgroup for the last month or so with
no delay and no internet connection.


[1] There are usually options for your storage periods from nil to
infinite. Google is very useful as a backup for very old posts lost to
you.

[Bron Santiago]

It is in this conversation. You are not looking at it. When I say I replied to you, I mean that I replied to your interleaved message with interleaves of my own.

[Bron Santiago]

Post by Bron Santiago
Please see my longer, earlier message of 24 July.
In case you are unused to this my replies are interleaved with yours.
This has the advantage that my replies are more likely to answer or
refer to your points.

Yes, thank you.

Post by Bron Santiago

My question is the name of the man to whom arms, with such a [Vairy
Gules and Argent] shield, were confirmed, his place of residence, and
in what year.

Short of, at some expense, going to the College of Arms, there are two
…
From [Vivian’s], page 741, the blazon is as you say (though you have
added in the crest’s blazon as well).

I apologise that I mentioned the arms blazoned on Vivian’s p. 741, as this obfuscates my question.

My question was: if anyone had Vivian’s — or another reference on the self, or in his or her computer — in which to find mention of the arms of which I inquire (those with the shield Vairy Gules and Argent). If no one has, then it is of little matter, as it was a question of pure curiosity.

Post by Bron Santiago

I realise I blazoned only the shield (possibly poorly). I blazoned
this from an image online at this address.
http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/turnlink.html

The blazon you give has little to do with the illustration on this page.
And you may care to note that the left hand illustration has a knight's
helm and no crest.

Again, I apologise that I mentioned the blazon on Vivian’s p. 741. I believe, if you refer to my earliest message and this image http://www.oocities.org/heartland/ranch/2298/images/turner6.gif , you will find Vairy Gules and Argent on a pale Or three Trefoils Proper a passable blazon.

I can read blazon very well, but cannot write very well.

Post by Bron Santiago

I thought the arms with such a shield would be recorded at the college
in Ireland, possibly Scotland or England, but it may be an unrecorded
US creation by Joanne M. Elliott. Still, who was the ultimate armiger
and who is the current armiger?

The words ‘ultimate armiger’ suggest that you have picked up some of the
misunderstandings of these bucket shop heraldry merchants. They like to
get you to think there are single coats of arms for a surname. This is
rubbish. For instance, Burke's Armory (pub 1884) gives over 50
instances of Turners with arms, many of them different (pages 1037 to
arms descend in families. Families are not those with the same surname.
Turner is a very common surname and different and totally unrelated
families will have adopted that name at different times, probably from
occupations such as wood-turner.

Yes, I am cognisant that arms belong to individuals and not to surnames, and that Turner is a very common occupational surname, born by countless unrelated families.

By ‘ultimate armiger’ I mean the individual to whom arms were first granted (in Great Britain or Ireland in this case) and from whom the living armiger (if any) descends, through male primogeniture, or through male primogeniture from a hereditary heiress. Other documented male‐line descendants may bear the arms as granted, differenced, and so are not, as I put it, the living armiger.

Post by Bron Santiago

Why cannot bucket‐shops and all forms of heraldic chicanery be
outlawed‽

Their activity is either fraud or theft but they invent all sorts of
dodgers to cover that up: I’ve heard bucket practitioners say that they
are merely providing arms to represent a person of the same name who the
modern family is adopting as a head of family!

Adopting as a head of family ? What rubbish. Only one living individual per jurisdiction
may bear unique arms at a given time.

I consider the United States the de facto (not de jure) jurisdiction of the College of Arms (London), the Court of the Lord Lyon, the Chief Herald of Ireland, and all other European states with colleges. An individual may bear arms in the United States which conflict with the arms of an armiger in a country with pretence of control over heraldry, but I consider this in very bad taste!

Because of the US history of panEuropean immigration, I do not think arms in the United States should conflict with arms in any part of the world where European heraldry has currency. It is still appropriate for arms in different jurisdictions in Europe to conflict.

Post by Bron Santiago

I am curious about true armigers bearing the surname Turner.

In which countries?

In all countries of the world.

Post by Bron Santiago
In some countries there is no pretence of control over heraldry and
all arms are true; the United States of America is one of these.

Regardless of US law, I do not consider inherited arms true if the bearer cannot document descent from an individual who rightly bore those arms in a country with pretence of control over heraldry. I do not consider undifferenced arms true unless the bearer can document male primogeniture descent from, or male primogeniture descent from the hereditary heiress of, an armiger in a country with pretence of control over heraldry (other than Poland).

I think it is appropriate for individuals in the United States to bear assumed arms, (and that these arms are true) if they have made public declaration that the arms are assumed, and they have done due‐diligence to demonstrate that the arms do not conflict with the arms of any armiger in any country with pretence of control over heraldry (including Canada) nor conflict with any assumed arms which have been publicly declared as assumed in any country without pretence of control over heraldry.

Post by Bron Santiago
(a) All the visitations for the armigers in the 16th and 17th centuries,
mostly published by the Harleian Society.
(b) The three volumes of the Grantees of Arms published by the Harleian
Society as Vol 57 in 1916; this covers new grants from pre-1600 to 1898.
Most of these are available as digital files somewhere on the internet;
see Chris Phillips' super site <www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk> and search
for 'visitations'.
<http://www.achievements.co.uk/family_tree_names/index.php/>
In Scotland there are the two volumes of the "Ordinary of Scottish Arms"
by James Balfour Paul and David Reid respectively.

Wonderful, thank you for the excellent resources.

and for arms granted to residents of Ireland during personal unions of Ireland with England — or the personal union of Ireland with Great Britain — or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ?

[o***@gmail.com]

The point Mr. Powes-Lybbe was making was that Arms perhaps in the future may be inherited through the female line (that is, through the daughter of an armiger as well as his sons), and he also points out that this is already the case in Canada-(as indeed, btw it is in Portugal, where one selects a name from amongst one's ancestors-be they maternal or paternal-and differences with a canton). This is presently not the case in England, Scotland or Ireland, save name-and-arms clauses and transmission via heraldic heiresses and is a convention followed largely by the rest of the world (with the exception of Portugal-see above)

However, personally speaking, I am against the idea of Arms being passed down through the female line; not for any mysogynistic reasons but because the many-quartered arms that would result would be quite frankly a mess and in heraldic bad taste. I don't think the Canadian Heraldic Authority really thought things through on this issue.

[Bron Santiago]

I like this.

Post by o***@gmail.com
The point Mr. Powes-Lybbe was making was that Arms perhaps in the future may be inherited through the female line (that is, through the daughter of an armiger as well as his sons), and he also points out that this is already the case in Canada-(as indeed, btw it is in Portugal, where one selects a name from amongst one's ancestors-be they maternal or paternal-and differences with a canton). This is presently not the case in England, Scotland or Ireland, save name-and-arms clauses and transmission via heraldic heiresses and is a convention followed largely by the rest of the world (with the exception of Portugal-see above)
However, personally speaking, I am against the idea of Arms being passed down through the female line; not for any mysogynistic reasons but because the many-quartered arms that would result would be quite frankly a mess and in heraldic bad taste. I don't think the Canadian Heraldic Authority really thought things through on this issue.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by o***@gmail.com
However, personally speaking, I am against the idea of Arms being passed
down through the female line; not for any mysogynistic reasons but
because the many-quartered arms that would result would be quite
frankly a mess and in heraldic bad taste. I don't think the Canadian
Heraldic Authority really thought things through on this issue.

The constitution gets in the way. Since the CHA is a government body, it has
to apply the gender equity provisions of the Constitution Act,1982.

[Bron Santiago]

I don't understand the dislike of impalement or the avoidance of dimidiation, also, when marshaling through quartering, one need not display all quarters to which one is entitled, one can pick certain ancestors whose arms one likes to include as quarters.

Post by Andrew Chaplin

Post by o***@gmail.com
However, personally speaking, I am against the idea of Arms being passed
down through the female line; not for any mysogynistic reasons but
because the many-quartered arms that would result would be quite
frankly a mess and in heraldic bad taste. I don't think the Canadian
Heraldic Authority really thought things through on this issue.

The constitution gets in the way. Since the CHA is a government body, it has
to apply the gender equity provisions of the Constitution Act,1982.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Bron Santiago
I don't understand the dislike of impalement or the avoidance of
dimidiation,

What dislike of impalement? It is very useful to precisely identify a
generation in a line of armigers all with the same name.

Dimidiations were agreed to be ugly and impractical very soon after
their idea was born.

Post by Bron Santiago
also, when marshaling through quartering, one need not display all
quarters to which one is entitled, one can pick certain ancestors
whose arms one likes to include as quarters.

Whose rules?

In Scotland they are firmly in favour of limiting the number of quarters
to four, but then they do sometimes put grand quarters in one or more of
these, getting up to a total of 16 quarters. I don't know if further
subdivision is ever practised, but so far such a sixteen have to be
selected from any larger number.

In England (and Wales, and other related territories) it is thought
vulgar to have a display of everything. The infamous Lloyd quarterings
continue to be apologised for. So again a selection is made from large
quantities of quarters.

In other countries, who knows? By and large in the countries without
heraldic rules, you can do what you like. Each country is sovereign,
none are subordinate to others.

<snip for brevity>