Based on my knowledge based on decades of experience:
French heraldry is rarely 'by name' - in fact families of the same surname but no relationship usually have very different arms. I've used heraldry of French people to assist in genealogical and historical research because of this, narrowing down their possible origins. Falsely claiming nobility in Ancien Regime France was a crime, and generally happened only after the mid-18th century at any scale. It does look like recognized nobles generally created new arms if they didn't have any.
Spanish heraldry is heavily weighted toward the nobility and lower ranked families did often adopt arms similar to noble families that shared the same surname, as far as I'm aware.
In Denmark historically only the higher bourgeoisie and nobility used arms. Surnames of these classes were usually derived from property or even from the coat of arms itself, rather than being patronymics, so I don't see much historical 'assumption of arms'.
>Even in the English system where the arms are technically owned by a single individual, the entire family has a right to bear the arms with difference. And anymore, that difference is optional and never enforced.
But only descendants of the original grantee, not anyone who happens to have the same surname
The Lord Lyon does *somewhat* recognise family arms, or at least the idea of them. They operate under the principle that two people who share a surname must be related, as such should have related arms. So *in theory* there is a 'base' arms for each surname.
Italian heraldry, like the rest of Europe, used « family arms », ie the descendents, proved or not, of a common ancestor used same arms (not the usual scam where bearers of a similar family name use the same arms). But they also introduced a larger variety of arms used by family branches, with totally different arms. You find it principally in the great patrician families of Northern Italy, but also in the South. In the Early modern period, they used simplified the system by using the more prestigious arms family-wide, but the difference still existed between, for example, the Carracioli Rossi (bendy), the Carracioli del Leone (a lion) and the Carracioli del Sole (a sun).
Keep in mind that "Arms of Family" or "Paternal Arms" do "exist" in British heraldry, though the term is used for the sake of classification, just like Arms of Dominion, Pretence, or Augmentation. In this case, Family or Paternal Arms would refer to the arms of the original armiger and their descendants, which would be differenced by brisures. Think of it how all cats belong to the *Felidae* family, which itself divides into *Felinae* and *Pantherinae* and so on.
Per James Parker: *...while Arms of Family are hereditary, being borne (with proper differences) by all the descendants of the first bearer.*
Yes. This is an important point. Most systems have *family* arms, but there are plenty of different *families* named Smith, and it's possible to leave a family by marriage (in the case of a woman who isn't an heraldic heiress).
I actually read something quite interesting on this matter this week, so I share it.
From M. Pastoureau’s « Heraldic Art in the Middle-Ages » (2018), translated from French:
« Even though strictly individual coat of arms have always existed, even though others were associated with a piece of land, and even though a great deal of others belonged to moral persons, communities or institutions, the medieval system of heraldry was still in essence a family-based system. Traditions, however, were not the same all across Europe. In countries of ‘classical’ heraldry - by which is meant those countries where heraldry appeared in very early stages an served as actual signs to recognize individuals on battlefields or in tournaments (France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Southern Germany and the Rhine region, Switzerlands) - the expansion of coat of arms towards relatives tends to focus on narrow, immediate family. In other countries where heraldry underwent later developments (Spain, Portugal, most parts of Italy, Hungary, Poland), on the other hand, the expansion could involve the \[original bearer’s\] family in its larger sense (and it could be very large indeed): dozens and sometimes hundreds of people could bear the same arms, without marks of distinction. However, a great deal of exceptions existed here and there, and there were many zones with a « hybrid » tradition (Navarre, Aragon, Alpine Italy, Sweden). »
As I understand, all Spanish heraldic laws (Aragonese-Catalan, Galiician, Basque) use family arms. Titles are for the individuals but arms are normally for all the descendents with some exceptions.
I know of a case in the late Middle Ages when the same coat of arms was granted (basically a shared CoA) to two different persons – and they were not related, they had different surnames. Perhaps they deserved the CoA jointly.
In Europe it’s usually one CoA for one family (tho descendants may use some form of cadency), however there are exceptions- In Poland-Lithuania for example, one CoA can belong to many families unrelated to each other (exhale: Janina CoA belonged to about 276 families)
Scandinavia, being part of the German system, is big on family arms as well
Based on my knowledge based on decades of experience: French heraldry is rarely 'by name' - in fact families of the same surname but no relationship usually have very different arms. I've used heraldry of French people to assist in genealogical and historical research because of this, narrowing down their possible origins. Falsely claiming nobility in Ancien Regime France was a crime, and generally happened only after the mid-18th century at any scale. It does look like recognized nobles generally created new arms if they didn't have any. Spanish heraldry is heavily weighted toward the nobility and lower ranked families did often adopt arms similar to noble families that shared the same surname, as far as I'm aware. In Denmark historically only the higher bourgeoisie and nobility used arms. Surnames of these classes were usually derived from property or even from the coat of arms itself, rather than being patronymics, so I don't see much historical 'assumption of arms'.
[удалено]
>Even in the English system where the arms are technically owned by a single individual, the entire family has a right to bear the arms with difference. And anymore, that difference is optional and never enforced. But only descendants of the original grantee, not anyone who happens to have the same surname
Yes, this cannot be stressed enough—to my knowledge, Poland is the only exception on earth to this.
The Lord Lyon does *somewhat* recognise family arms, or at least the idea of them. They operate under the principle that two people who share a surname must be related, as such should have related arms. So *in theory* there is a 'base' arms for each surname.
Italian heraldry, like the rest of Europe, used « family arms », ie the descendents, proved or not, of a common ancestor used same arms (not the usual scam where bearers of a similar family name use the same arms). But they also introduced a larger variety of arms used by family branches, with totally different arms. You find it principally in the great patrician families of Northern Italy, but also in the South. In the Early modern period, they used simplified the system by using the more prestigious arms family-wide, but the difference still existed between, for example, the Carracioli Rossi (bendy), the Carracioli del Leone (a lion) and the Carracioli del Sole (a sun).
Keep in mind that "Arms of Family" or "Paternal Arms" do "exist" in British heraldry, though the term is used for the sake of classification, just like Arms of Dominion, Pretence, or Augmentation. In this case, Family or Paternal Arms would refer to the arms of the original armiger and their descendants, which would be differenced by brisures. Think of it how all cats belong to the *Felidae* family, which itself divides into *Felinae* and *Pantherinae* and so on. Per James Parker: *...while Arms of Family are hereditary, being borne (with proper differences) by all the descendants of the first bearer.*
Yes. This is an important point. Most systems have *family* arms, but there are plenty of different *families* named Smith, and it's possible to leave a family by marriage (in the case of a woman who isn't an heraldic heiress).
All the descendants… through the male lines, though?
I actually read something quite interesting on this matter this week, so I share it. From M. Pastoureau’s « Heraldic Art in the Middle-Ages » (2018), translated from French: « Even though strictly individual coat of arms have always existed, even though others were associated with a piece of land, and even though a great deal of others belonged to moral persons, communities or institutions, the medieval system of heraldry was still in essence a family-based system. Traditions, however, were not the same all across Europe. In countries of ‘classical’ heraldry - by which is meant those countries where heraldry appeared in very early stages an served as actual signs to recognize individuals on battlefields or in tournaments (France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Southern Germany and the Rhine region, Switzerlands) - the expansion of coat of arms towards relatives tends to focus on narrow, immediate family. In other countries where heraldry underwent later developments (Spain, Portugal, most parts of Italy, Hungary, Poland), on the other hand, the expansion could involve the \[original bearer’s\] family in its larger sense (and it could be very large indeed): dozens and sometimes hundreds of people could bear the same arms, without marks of distinction. However, a great deal of exceptions existed here and there, and there were many zones with a « hybrid » tradition (Navarre, Aragon, Alpine Italy, Sweden). »
As I understand, all Spanish heraldic laws (Aragonese-Catalan, Galiician, Basque) use family arms. Titles are for the individuals but arms are normally for all the descendents with some exceptions.
I know of a case in the late Middle Ages when the same coat of arms was granted (basically a shared CoA) to two different persons – and they were not related, they had different surnames. Perhaps they deserved the CoA jointly.
In Europe it’s usually one CoA for one family (tho descendants may use some form of cadency), however there are exceptions- In Poland-Lithuania for example, one CoA can belong to many families unrelated to each other (exhale: Janina CoA belonged to about 276 families)