Marital arms : new College of Arms rules

[Arthur Radburn]

An interesting development from the College of Arms, now on their website :

" Arms of individuals in same-sex marriages: ruling by the Kings of Arms
29 April 2014

In a ruling dated 29 March 2014 the Kings of Arms have issued an ordinance governing the arms of individuals in same-sex marriages.

The ruling aims to replicate as closely as possible the heraldic practice for married couples of different sex.

The ruling also amends a ruling of the Kings of Arms dated 6 November 1997 in respect of the arms of married women, ordaining that the use of the mark of difference laid down there for married women will henceforth be optional.

For the full text of the ruling, see here. "

The full text reads as follows :

" The Arms of Individuals in Same-Sex Marriages
The text of a ruling by the Kings of Arms dated 29 March 2014

We, Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy & Ulster King of Arms, do rule, ordain and decree as follows:

(1) A man who contracts a same-sex marriage may impale the arms of his husband with his own on a shield or banner but should bear his own crest rather than the crests of both parties.

The coat of arms of each party to the marriage will be distinguishable (1) by the arms of the individual concerned being placed on the dexter side of the shield or banner and (2) by the crest (when included).

When one of the parties to the marriage dies, the survivor may continue to bear the combined arms on a shield or banner.

(2) A woman who contracts a same-sex marriage may bear arms on a shield or banner, impaling the arms of her wife with her own or (in cases where the other party is an heraldic heiress) placing the arms of her wife in pretence.

The coat of arms of each party to the marriage will be distinguishable by the arms of the individual concerned being placed on the dexter side of the shield or banner (or displayed as the principal arms in cases where the other party is an heraldic heiress whose arms are borne in pretence).

When one of the parties to the marriage dies, the survivor may bear the combined arms on a lozenge or banner.

(3) A married man will continue to have the option of bearing his own arms alone.

A ruling of the Kings of Arms made on 6 November 1997 allows a married woman to bear her own arms alone differenced by a small escutcheon. That will continue to be the case but the addition of the mark of difference will forthwith be optional.

Thomas Woodcock, Garter
Patric Dickinson, Clarenceux
H Bedingfeld, Norroy and Ulster "

[Kathy McClurg]

Well, they've handled same sex marriages better than they've handled women over the years.. bravo.

What should become interesting is how they handle children of same sex marriages... I haven't looked recently at how they handle adoptions, but, in the US, surrogates are also an option, making the child a genetic descendant of at least one member of the union... but hmm...

Thank goodness the escutcheon marring the arms of married female armigers is now optional.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

I think it is amazing that they were so swift in this instance - a mere 36 days.

Whereas paragraph 3 corrects a hurried and misjudged decision, 5987 days (or 16 years, 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days) later.

It would also be nice of them to gather all the decisions they have made over the years and promulgate them on their website.

[Arthur Radburn]

What should become interesting is how they handle children of same sex marriages... I haven't looked recently at how they handle adoptions, but, in the US, surrogates are also an option, making the child a genetic descendant of at least one member of the union... but hmm...

I wonder if there would there be any difference between a same-sex couple and a M/F couple as far as adopted, artificially conceived, or surrogate-borne children are concerned. If not, then the existing arrangements could apply as they stand. AFAIK, a royal licence is needed in all cases.

Thank goodness the escutcheon marring the arms of married female armigers is now optional.

Like the mascle which was introduced in the 1950s to mark the arms of a divorced woman. Most ungentlemanly to stigmatise a lady like that!

This is certainly a step towards gender equality, but there are still a few more to be taken, e.g. allowing crests (and helmets), and allowing unmarried, divorced and widowed women to display arms on shields instead of lozenges if they wish.

It would also be nice of them to gather all the decisions they have made over the years and promulgate them on their website.

Amen to that! And not only the College : all the heraldry authorities around the world.

[Martin Goldstraw]

It would also be nice of them to gather all the decisions they have made over the years and promulgate them on their website.

Hear hear. Perhaps then we could begin to have some understanding of the term "according to the law of arms".

[Terry Baldwin]

Add my thoughts to Chas and Martin, such a posting would be a blessing.

It would also be nice of them to gather all the decisions they have made over the years and promulgate them on their website.

Hear hear. Perhaps then we could begin to have some understanding of the term "according to the law of arms".

[Kathy McClurg]

What should become interesting is how they handle children of same sex marriages... I haven't looked recently at how they handle adoptions, but, in the US, surrogates are also an option, making the child a genetic descendant of at least one member of the union... but hmm...

I wonder if there would there be any difference between a same-sex couple and a M/F couple as far as adopted, artificially conceived, or surrogate-borne children are concerned. If not, then the existing arrangements could apply as they stand. AFAIK, a royal licence is needed in all cases.

I have been querying the social media heraldry community. Thus far there is no "good" answer to my mind. The situation is this: Any child born of one member of a same sex couple, however conceived, will by definition (currently in England) be born illegitimate. Then IF the non-natural parent adopts, the child will be a bastard of one and adopted of the other. The laws making an adopted person full and legal part of the family doesn't appear to extend to peerages or arms. So, now what?

I suspect we will have to wait until someone has this situation to find out.

[JMcMillan]

I have been querying the social media heraldry community. Thus far there is no "good" answer to my mind. The situation is this: Any child born of one member of a same sex couple, however conceived, will by definition (currently in England) be born illegitimate. Then IF the non-natural parent adopts, the child will be a bastard of one and adopted of the other. The laws making an adopted person full and legal part of the family doesn't appear to extend to peerages or arms. So, now what? I suspect we will have to wait until someone has this situation to find out.

The English laws making an adopted child a full legal part of the family do not provide a specific exemption for inheritance of arms. What they say is that "An adoption does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour" (sec 71(1), Adoption and Children Act 2002). It is not Parliament but the chapter of the College of Arms that has chosen to interpret arms as being a dignity within the meaning of the act. This can perhaps be justified after the fact by the dictum in the 1954 Manchester case that arms are "in the nature of a dignity," but the chapter had rejected the applicability of adoption to inheritance of arms well before that.

In any case, this position does not present any issues peculiar to same-sex couples. Couples in traditional marriages who adopt children (or have children born via surrogacy, IVF, sperm donation, etc.) are in exactly the same position.

In other words, we don't have to wait until some has the situation you describe to find out what the college will do. The situation has already arisen, many times over, and we know the result, however much some of us may disagree with it.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

Just a point of clarification -

(or have children born via surrogacy, IVF, sperm donation, etc.)

Surrogacy is not legal in the UK - we don't sell children.

IVF and sperm donation - How would the College ever know?

[JMcMillan]

Just a point of clarification -

(or have children born via surrogacy, IVF, sperm donation, etc.)

Surrogacy is not legal in the UK - we don't sell children.

IVF and sperm donation - How would the College ever know?

They probably wouldn't. For that matter, how would they ever know if a child was adopted, especially one adopted as an infant? And since there is no requirement for English people inheriting arms to matriculate or register them with the College, the occasion need never arise for the heralds to approve or disapprove or impose the differencing for adoption.

But then, we're forever being told that the reason English men and women don't just assume arms of their own choosing is that it's against the rules, even though the College of Arms has no real power to enforce those rules. So does the self-enforcing honor code system hold for some rules and not for others?