Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

The discussion board for all things concerning heraldry which falls under the jurisdiction of The College of Arms
User avatar
Arthur Radburn
Posts: 1331
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 09:56

Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Arthur Radburn » 27 Jun 2021, 21:53

A couple of days ago, the York Herald gave an online talk to American Ancestors on "The College of Arms in the Eighteenth Century". You can watch the presentation here. If you want to skip the introductions, the actual talk begins at 7:10. There's a Q&A session at the end.

On a modern point : one of the questions was about granting arms to women. York confirmed that women could not transmit their arms to their descendants. He pointed out that the College is bound by the law governing how coats of arms work, and said that "while we don't necessarily like that", it would require an Act of Parliament to change it.
Regards
Arthur Radburn

User avatar
Jeremy Fox
Posts: 56
Joined: 19 Dec 2017, 15:14
Contact:

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Jeremy Fox » 28 Jun 2021, 18:54

Did he say which law that was? Did he say that the College of Arms was working to have that law changed?

"Under the Equality Act (2010)you are protected from discrimination ... when you use businesses and other organisations that provide services and goods"

At present, any female paying towards obtaining a grant of arms gets less for her money than a male would. Surely any law prior to 2010 would be superseded, in this respect, by the Equality Act.

User avatar
Arthur Radburn
Posts: 1331
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 09:56

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Arthur Radburn » 29 Jun 2021, 09:53

Jeremy Fox wrote:Did he say which law that was? Did he say that the College of Arms was working to have that law changed?

No and no. AFAIK, the Law of Arms is not a statute, and I wondered why it would require an Act of Parliament to change it. But then I'm not a lawyer.

"Under the Equality Act (2010)you are protected from discrimination ... when you use businesses and other organisations that provide services and goods"

At present, any female paying towards obtaining a grant of arms gets less for her money than a male would. Surely any law prior to 2010 would be superseded, in this respect, by the Equality Act.

I wonder if the Act applies to the College. Not all Acts do : the College, for instance, is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps it's because the College is part of the Royal Household rather than "the government".
Regards
Arthur Radburn

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1400
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 29 Jun 2021, 10:43

Arthur Radburn wrote:A couple of days ago, the York Herald gave an online talk to American Ancestors on "The College of Arms in the Eighteenth Century" //snip//
He pointed out that the College is bound by the law governing how coats of arms work, and said that "while we don't necessarily like that", it would require an Act of Parliament to change it.


Presumably, when he refers to arms being "bound by the governing law [of] how coats of arms work" he is referring to the so called "law of arms" . Whatever the law of arms is, according to the College of Arms themselves (on their website as I write) "Control [of the law of arms] is delegated to the Kings of Arms, or senior heralds, who are Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy and Ulster. They interpret the laws and conventions of arms, and are empowered to grant arms in the name of The Sovereign." N.B. "They interpret the laws and conventions of arms.

The "law of arms" is in fact more akin to the rules of arms as set down by the College of Arms and as such, I doubt very much whether an Act of Parliament would be required for the College to rule how arms might be inherited; they could simply write a specific descent into the LsP as they are empowered to act in the name of the Sovereign. Grants of arms are made under the prerogative of the Sovereign, not through any Act of Parliament. No such Act of Parliament was required when the Kings of Arms decided upon how the arms of same sex couples should be treated (although admittedly the question of descent did not arise).
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Chris Green » 29 Jun 2021, 11:22

Instead of speculating, might it not be better to contact York Herald and ask him to elaborate?
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1400
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 29 Jun 2021, 11:26

Chris Green wrote:Instead of speculating, might it not be better to contact York Herald and ask him to elaborate?


By all means press York Herald on his assertion however, it is on record that the College is not subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny or control.

There was an attempt to bring the College of Arms under the control of Parliament in what was to have been The College of Arms Bill 1973 however, it failed at the second reading in the House of Lords. That the affairs of the College are by way of Royal Prerogative, is confirmed at the start of the debate when Earl St. Aldwyn introduced the Bill by stating that " My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the College of Arms Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by this Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill". Most pertinent to our discussion, during the debate, the Minister for the Home Office, Viscount Colville of Culross stated that "from time to time, like other people, no doubt, we in Government have our disagreements with the College of Heralds. But there is no statutory responsibility, either at the Home Office or anywhere else at the moment, for the way in which the College runs its affairs."

I suggest that York Herald is either misinformed or has deflected the question by misinforming the questioner.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Chris Green » 29 Jun 2021, 11:32

I suggest that York Herald is either misinformed or has deflected the question by misinforming the questioner.


You may well be right.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
Arthur Radburn
Posts: 1331
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 09:56

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Arthur Radburn » 30 Jun 2021, 16:46

One of the undefined aspects of the Law of Arms is just who the lawmaker is. If it isn't Parliament, is it the Earl Marshal or the Kings of Arms?

There was a time when the Earl Marshal had royal authority to order, judge and determine "all matters concerning arms, crests, supporters, cognizances, pedigrees, devices and ensigns armorial", to make and prescribe "rules, ordinances and decrees for the granting, controlling and regulating thereof", and to put "the laws and ordinances relating thereto" in execution. If he still has that authority, measures to introduce gender equality in the grant, control and regulation of arms could, on the face of it, fall within his remit.

However, it was the Kings of Arms who, in 1995 and 1997, ruled, ordained and decreed new rules for the bearing of arms by women. While most of the rules related to the display of arms, they also introduced the new principle that a woman armiger's children can inherit her arms, as a quartering, in her lifetime (prior to 1997, they inherited only after her death).
Regards
Arthur Radburn

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1400
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 30 Jun 2021, 17:17

Arthur Radburn wrote:One of the undefined aspects of the Law of Arms is just who the lawmaker is. If it isn't Parliament, is it the Earl Marshal or the Kings of Arms?

There was a time when the Earl Marshal had royal authority to order, judge and determine "all matters concerning arms, crests, supporters, cognizances, pedigrees, devices and ensigns armorial", to make and prescribe "rules, ordinances and decrees for the granting, controlling and regulating thereof", and to put "the laws and ordinances relating thereto" in execution. If he still has that authority, measures to introduce gender equality in the grant, control and regulation of arms could, on the face of it, fall within his remit.

However, it was the Kings of Arms who, in 1995 and 1997, ruled, ordained and decreed new rules for the bearing of arms by women. While most of the rules related to the display of arms, they also introduced the new principle that a woman armiger's children can inherit her arms, as a quartering, in her lifetime (prior to 1997, they inherited only after her death).


One thing is very clear, Parliament has no control over the College of Arms. The Kings of Arms, generally speaking, always act under the authority of the Earl Marshal. This is not and never has been a matter for Parliament and falls under the prerogative of the Sovereign.

Perhaps, if we allow Mr. York some leeway, what he really meant was that the College of Arms does not seek to do anything in regard to the matter of equality for women (despite the fact that it could) however, should Parliament ever pass a Bill which made it illegal to do so and included (as it has not yet done) the inheritance of coats of arms then they would be forced to comply and would have to act. Let us remember that in the failed Bill of the 1973 H.M. expressed a willingness to surrender her Prerogative to Parliament in all matters covered by the Bill so, if Parliament ever did decided to make it unlawful to discriminate in armorial matters, H.M. would allow Her Parliament to do so. As yet, they have not.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Online talk : College of Arms in the 18th Century

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 09 Apr 2022, 18:22

Isn't the law of arms customary law? While the College is responsible for interpreting it, it isn't really their job to change it. The law of inheritance is really a fundamental part of the law, and the college has repeatedly reaffirmed it. So they couldn't plausibly claim a new interpretation. I should also point out, that this is not as simple as many people seem to think, depending on exactly how the rule is changed, it could break heraldry.

Now, it is kind of ridiculous that a woman, having received a grant of arms, can not pass it down to her children. However, if we simply say that one can inherit from the female line as well as the male line, then coat of arms would lose their exclusivity. Anyone could then search their family tree for an armiger, and as long as the descent is legitimate, then they have the right to those arms.

I believe the best solution is a name and arms clause, or rather the type of Royal License that is used in name and arms clauses. A woman with children probably already has the same name as her children anyway. I am not sure how difficult obtaining a Royal License is, but in the case of a woman grantee, the pedigree would be short, and I don't see why the process couldn't be streamlined. At best, the Royal License would be obtained at the same time as the grant.


Return to “College of Arms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests