r/heraldry • u/Bradypus_Rex • 14h ago
Discussion "Families don't have arms" is horse💩 - stop saying it.
[ETA because it's apparently needed even though I said it just below: no, I don't think surnames have arms, no I don't think you are inaccurate if you say "surnames don't have arms" and I say it myself here regularly. But unless you would say that to Guillim, Berry, Woodward, Fox-Davies, Ströhl, Neubecker, Pastoureau… please don't feel the need to correct everyone who says "the arms of the X family". If you need to be specific that it's not the whole extended family, just say "only branches of families have arms"]
- only if you're in one of the few strict cadency traditions 🏴🇨🇦🇵🇹🇪🇸\)
- and only then if you're an insufferable pedant
- it always seems to be said here as a way of scoring off newbies
- it's been common practice to talk about the arms of a family at least since the 17th century
TL;DR: stop saying "families don't have arms" and say — if you even need to — "branches of families have arms, but surnames don't". But when even the most respected heraldic writers of the last four centuries have been speaking about The Arms of the [X] family***,*** default assumption should be that you don't need to.
Don't take it from me. The College of Arms🏴 says;
A coat of arms [doesn't belong to a surname but] is granted or confirmed to one person and their descendants in the legitimate male line so only that family group will be entitled to the coat of arms,* \*)
They go on to say:
[the practice of younger sons differencing] is little used in modern heraldry and members of a family tend to bear their arms undifferenced - the identity of the individual family member being apparent from the context in which the arms are used.
Case study.
I am the oldest son of an oldest son from England🏴. I now live in Belgium🇧🇪. Even under the strictest practice:
- If my dear late grandfather🏴 had had arms (used by my grandma also) my father🏴 would have them identically (used by my mother also).
- I would have them with a label, and in due course — may it be far away! — verbatim.
That sure sounds like arms belonging to our branch of the family
- Meanwhile my children 🇧🇪, assuming they share my name will have them verbatim***.
- as will my grandchildren🇧🇪 and great-grandchildren🇧🇪 who share my name, no matter if they descend from my sons or daughters.
and even if we're old school and stricter than the current College of Arms (and nothing wrong with that)
- my younger brother🏴 would have substantially the same arms with a little crescent in the corner (and my sister in law🇺🇸 would use them also).
- Their descendents 🇺🇸 of the same surname would share his arms verbatim.
So yes, arms don't belong to everyone with the same surname - our surname is shared by zillions of other families and yes, they don't propagate backwards. But yes they would absolutely belong to (our branch of) our family!
The image is from Hugo Ströhl, who I hope we can all agree knows his stuff.
\ not sure about Spain. And tell me if there's others that use them for non-nobility arms in the present day, and I'll add them)
\* If you want a hundred other quotes from authoritative sources, lmk)
\** Link in Dutch, sorry, Machine-translation of the relevant bit:) Transferability: A new coat of arms may be borne by the beneficiary and their descendants who carry the same surname. The inheritance of the coat of arms thus follows the family name. In the case of historical coats of arms, the heraldic customs of the time dictated a form of inheritance in which only male descendants bearing the surname would typically pass on the arms. However, once such a historical coat of arms has been officially recognized by the Flemish Government \and the same rules apply to the Francophone community, and for unregistered arms — which may be freely assumed and used in Belgium]), it becomes subject to contemporary practice: the coat of arms may be borne by the beneficiary and their descendants who carry the same surname, regardless of gender.
