Talk:Family crest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February thread

Kittybrewster-- Reverting with no discussion isn't nice. Do you have specific comments on the material I put in? (In the meantime, I'll leave your original form, and just put on a POV tag.) Sneftel 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there still be discussion of family crests such as those in Japan, where there are "such a thing"? That's what I was looking for when I came to the page. A blanket statement that proposes "there is no such thing" is only looking at the perhaps improper use of the term in regards to European regalia, but the term is still very much used in regards to the Japanese form and I've never heard any objection such a usage. Let's not be too Euro-centric, shall we?

Huh, hadn't thought of that. It looks like that's handled at Kamon... if no other changes, there should definitely be a link there. Sneftel 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Japan and it may be that some European countries use the term bizarrely. For UK etc the original article was correct and was wrongly turned about to mean the opposite of the facts. I have added a kamon reference although it seems to me a kamon is a kamon, a crest is a crest and a family crest is a misnomer. When I write about a knife, I don't expect interspersions about couteaux. Kittybrewster 04:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"wrongly turned about to mean the opposite of the facts": How so? It seems like both versions say the same thing: People use such ornaments to refer to their family, although those ornaments aren't recognized by any formal college of heraldry and may have little or no history behind them. Also, the added "Things may be different in a few other European countries..." sounds downright dismissive; it seems like a good idea to rewrite that as well. Sneftel 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that some people wrongly and unlawfully use the crest of a different person as if it belongs to the person wrongly assuming the other's armigerous accoutrements in no way causes a "family crest" to become a real, legal or authorised thing. The fact (if it is a fact) that Japanese people enjoy a kamon as members of a family also does not mean there is any such thing as a family crest. There is not; that is a fact which has nothing to do with neutrality. If Sneftel wishes it were otherwise, that is merely a wish (shared by some others who do not know as much about heraldry as they can find out from reading this site) - it does not give rise to there being such a thing as a family crest. I think it is unconstructive under this heading to compare the merits of and practices in different countries. Kittybrewster 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I think we're mostly on the same page now. A "family crest" is used by certain individuals to refer to their family line, but that has no standing in formal heraldry, and may even be illegal, if the person is in a country with legally established heraldry and using an emblem which actually belongs to someone else. Since neither of us has experience with "other europan countries", it might also be a good idea to put out a request for the article to be expanded. As for the Kamon stuff, it's gone from dismissive to outright contradictory: Family crest says a Kamon is not a crest, Kamon says it is. I've attempted another rewrite, including the legality stuff as well as integrating Kamon into the flow; what do you think? Sneftel 01:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What you wrote is, I am afraid, ignorant nonsense. Provide any reference :please supporting what you say. I have reverted. Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Kittybrewster 11:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time you've reverted my work without any detailed discussion other than to accuse me of vandalism. Please try to be civil and assume good faith. Do you have any specific criticisms of the edits I made, as to what is "ignorant nonsense"? Let's try to work together towards a consensus for fixing the article. Sneftel 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The contention you propound without authoritative references is that there is such a thing as a family crest. All the books cited and wikipedia disagree with you. So please cite your sources. Frankly I am not sure that your statement is true in any country in the world. It seems to me you are denying authorities without good cause. This is not just a point of view it is a matter of definition. Kittybrewster 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(man, getting a lot of colons here) A cursory Google search reveals many artists willing to design "custom family crests", as well as many people who make use of those services; that proves their existence. It could hardly be argued, furthermore, that the people commissioning the crests are under any illusions as to how much history is behind them. It's unsurprising that the references you cited wouldn't consider family crests legitimate, as those books are specific to the study of formal, standardized heraldry.Sneftel 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for "unicorn" gave 12,500,000 results, thereby proving conclusively that there are lots of references to unicorns on the internet. Wow! I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to do a "cursory" search which would enable me to use Google to prove that unicorns exists. Advice, sought please. Matt Stan 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are prostitutes who stand to gain commercially from selling a product which some people demand. That does not validate, legalise or justify the concept any more than an opinion that kitsch is good taste makes it so. An encyclopedia does not pretend that fairies exist in reality just becxause numerous people believe in their existence. As you say, someone who commissions a new coat of arms (part of which would be a crest as explained on heraldry) is hardly going to think it has been around since time immemorial. But he will surely believe they are bogus or assumed unless they are designed by and registered with somebody authorised in the formal nuances of their creation. I think you are falling into the trap of thinking a crest is a shield or a crest is a coat of arms or a whatever is legitimated just by being drawn up - which it is not. What precisely is informal, non-standardized heraldry and what purpose does it have? It sounds pretentious at best, rather like a yearning to call oneself Lord ..... (which of course one isn't) because one has bought a Lordship of the Manor. In certain countries the use of bogus arms is illegal and the person committing the offence is in danger of being fined or imprisoned or having his bogus arms defaced and I am unclear what his purpose is in using pretend arms to which he is not entitled. And yet I recognise there have been nutters who call themselves King of ....... or Princess Anastasia without any entitlement; maybe that would make a useful Wikipedia article. There was a time when in England lawyers and tradesmen were disbarred from the use of arms as were teachers, doctors and farmers; in the beginning it was the need to use arms rather than the desire to establish oneself in society that gave rise to the spread of heraldry. As an aside, the grant of arms to Shakespeare was criticised at the time on the grounds that he was insufficiently worthy. By the seventeenth century arms were regarded differently and were greatly sought after for all the wrong reasons. Conditions in Scotland were better for there was less class distinction and more clannishness. Clearly we need an authoritative article about the purpose and rights to bear arms. and possibly a reference to [fake titles] Kittybrewster 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Your argument, if I may paraphrase, seems to consist of two points: (1) family crests have no legitimate authority, and (2) those who use family crests are pretentious. The first point I have agreed with since the beginning; the second one seems to be the thrust of the POV which is currently the subject of dispute. I think we're going around in circles here... I'll see if I can't get a third opinion.
Also, please don't remove the POV tag. Sneftel 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because a website exists about someting is NOT proof of that thing's existence. There are many websites about UFOs, psychic predictions, and God. While one or more of these things may exist, the fact that they have websites is not (in and of itself) proof of anything. So, while there may be websites offering to sell you a family crest design, this does not mean that such a thing exists. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Kittybrewster 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My point about family crests is that their creation is purely jussive; that is, one says "I choose this as a family crest" and that's that. It's similar to one's signature; if one chooses to sign one's name with an underline, and does so repeatedly and customarily, that becomes their signature purely because it _is_ customary to them. Because of this, people who say they have chosen a family crest for themselves are adequate proof that they have chosen family crests for themselves. Again, this is not a matter of people falsely offering family crest designs to the gullible (or, at least, it is not always the case). Sneftel 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And why would one call that "thing" one is choosing a family crest? Am I choosing it for myself and my parents children and first cousins or what? Kittybrewster 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The term _is_ sort of arbitrary. but it does seem to be the common usage. Web searches turn up plenty of people creating "family crests", but relatively few people creating "coats of arms". It may be that the martial connotations of the latter term are not as appealing as the hereditary connotations of the former... but that's purely conjecture on my part. (And, of course, people with knowledge of the legal protection afforded to coats of arms would be careful to distinguish their own creation from them.) As for who it's chosen for... well, since the creation is informal, its transferrence is as well: If your offspring didn't bother to keep it around, there'd be nothing to keep it alive. It would be difficult to determine exactly how common it is for these family crests to be passed down, because of the cruft of "bucket shop" family crests. Sneftel 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I question the value of this article's existence. It would suffice for Family crest to redirect to Crest (heraldry), which can have a note at the top such as The word "crest" is often mistakenly applied to a coat of arms; for further information see Heraldry. (And perhaps Heraldry needs a section on "bucket shops".) Meanwhile, the key sentence is not strictly accurate: crests are hereditary, and usually not differenced when the shield is (the royal crests being an exception because they double as badges of sovereignty). The common misconception that needs fighting is that all of a given surname share a lineage and a single coat of arms; this is a subtler point but not so subtle that it helps to distort it into "There is no such thing as a family crest." —Tamfang 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. What do you think of my rewrite's point regarding "conflating one's surname with one's bloodline"? I think that even in the context of European heraldry there's a place for this article, at least to explain the confusion and refer to Bucket shop. Also, of course, there should be a place for a more international view of family crests (Kamon et al.). Sneftel 06:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Meaning presumably "family" coats of arms which also do not exist in UK, Commonwealth & the Americas and numerous other countries. Kittybrewster 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What, armory isn't hereditary in such countries?? —Tamfang 16:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bucket shops

Kittybrewster, do you have in mind later to replace the redirection from heraldic bucket shops with a longer article, distinct from the existing bucket shop article? It's not obvious to me that it's worth a separate page; and if there is not to be a separate page, why prefer "heraldic bucket shop" to "heraldic bucket shop"? (And by the way, for a title it ought to be singular.) —Tamfang 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rights of the ignorant

Sneftel's attempts to POVise this article are disingenuous. One might as well write about unicorns:

Unicorns are a hybrid of a horse and a narwhal, and, like yettis and the Loch Ness Monster exist because many people believe in their existence. Wikipedia's NPOV rules promote the idea of the existence of anything providing that someone believes in its existence. Therefore it is valid in wikipedia to claim that any fact is merely someone's point of view. Facts can't be enumerated in case they offend the holders of alternative views.

And how about math: In math it is believed by many that 2+2=4. However those not acquainted with elementary arithmetic may hold a different view and therefore it can't be stated as a fact that 2+2=4. To do so would contravene wikipedia's NPOV rule and offend the ignorant. This would be an insult to the ignorant, whose whole essence is to ignore that which might inform. "Ignorant rights", meaning the rights of ignorant people, seem to be getting ignored by contributors to wikipedia. This is a scandal which must be ended forthwith. Long live ignorance! Matt Stan 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course. NPOV duly removed. Kittybrewster 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference between this sort of thing and unicorns is that for unicorns to exist, they must have physical, tangible reality. The same thing is not true here. And if there were a whole bunch of people who believed in unicorns, guess what: We'd document them! Not in a "so maybe unicorns DO exist" way, but in a "there's this whole bunch of people who believe in unicorns" way. We would be documenting not their worldview as fact--which it isnt--but their actions as fact--which they would be. You seem to think that the problem is with offending people; I couldn't care less about that. The problem is with Wikipedia failing to document what is demonstrably a semi-common activity. And Kittybrewster, once again, please do not remove the POV tag. I've refrained from getting into an edit war; I expect you to do the same. Sneftel 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sneftel, you are wrong. Heraldry is a science and an art. It is not a point of view. A "family crest" does not exist in the Oxford English Dictionary and has no place here. You provide no authority, no references - just an assertion. Your assertion or the commercial prostitution by various companies does give rise to the entry on heraldic bucket shops - which you also doubtless think non-neutral POV but it does not justify your POV tag. I have provided authoritative references and expect you to do the same. Your contribution is not verifiable which it has to be. Kittybrewster 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, here's a few: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] These are webpages of people who have created (or have a family member who created) a family crest design. These links are not offered to prove that family crests have any legitimacy under Heraldry, but to prove that this practice actually occurs on a regular basis. Since it is a practice which occurs on a regular basis, it is notable, and should be documented. Sneftel 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
They're merely using the wrong word for a legitimate practice. Where there is no authority, anyone may assume a coat of arms, provided they make reasonable efforts to avoid the appearance of impersonating someone else. That's how heraldry began! What needs opposing is the notion that because your name is (let's say) Howard – even if it was Horowitz or Hogwarts a couple of generations ago – you should paint the Norfolk arms on your truck. —Tamfang 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree; I've tried to make that point with my versions. My move to add the information to this article was based on what seems to be the general usage, incorrect as it may be. However, given the obviously contentious nature of the issue, I see no reason not to put the topic in a different article, if an appropriate title can be found. Do you have any ideas? Sneftel 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean rename Family crest to something less controversial, or incorporate the point about "Howard family arms" into an existing article? Why not Heraldry? —Tamfang 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure. I'm shooting from the hip here. It's looking more and more like the subject of "Howard family arms" and the subject of self-made ornaments are not going to be able to peacefully coexist within a single article, so perhaps they should be split up. And a reasonable argument could be made that the two are significantly different subjects, so splitting them up wouldn't necessarily be the tail wagging the dog. The question of where exactly the line should be drawn and what the resultant titles should be is, of course, up in the air. (BTW: I'm going to be out of contact from later today until Monday evening.) Sneftel 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we need entries for Usurping arms and Bogus arms. Me too (out of contact). Kittybrewster 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So why is there a Wikipedia entry for something that doesn't exist? —Tamfang 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to inform the ignorant and point them in the right direction so they learn about the subject of arms, crests or whatever they want to know about - and to advise them why they have adopted a historically mistaken idea and where they can learn more factual data. Kittybrewster 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
And why can't that be done by simple redirection such as I suggested above? Does every popular misconception need its own article, and one whose first sentence is not strictly accurate? —Tamfang 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for the family

Kitty asks: And why would one call that "thing" one is choosing a family crest? Am I choosing it for myself and my parents children and first cousins or what? I gather that it's not uncommon for Lyon and other authorities to grant arms to the (deceased) father or grandfather of the petitioner, to be borne with appropriate differences by all descendants thereof. In the informal world, obviously the inventor of a symbol decides what it symbolizes; I could invent a device and assign it to my grandfather (I don't know any more distant kin because he was a black sheep), and bear it with an appropriate difference — but it's up to each of my kin to decide whether they adopt the same device for the same purpose. Of the many coats of arms assumed (or authoritatively granted) in recent times, it would be interesting to know how many have actually been used by any adult other than the first bearer! —Tamfang 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is unheard of for Lord Lyon to grant a coat of arms to a man for passing to previous generations and then down to all their descendants. My brother woul d not usurp my arms; nor would the Procurator Fiscal permit it. Example: In the 1970s Arbuthnot Latham & Co was fined for usurping and using the crest of Sir Hugh Arbuthnot Bt and was forced to change stationery and symbol. Your sources please? You think 2nd son gets a cadency mark and his eldest son's 2nd son gets the same? In a bull's back-yard. In the absence of any authority or source in support of your contention (or plea for inaccuracy and ignorance) there is no justification for the bald statement that the article is not npov. you may find it controversial or even disagree with it but it is pure and hugely supported by all who know the topic.[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 02:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay so "all descendants" was a bit sloppy, I should have spelled out "all descendants in the male line plus females if they have no brothers (or if their brothers' issue is extinct) and their descendants in the male line and so on, subject to due matriculation with appropriate differences" — did I miss anything, or can we get on with it? (I did specify "appropriate differences", I don't know why you missed that.) Is it unknown for Lyon (or Garter) to grant arms for a deceased ancestor and then matriculate the petitioner's arms as a descendant (duly differenced if he is not the heir)?
I don't know why you think I'd approve of Arbuthnot Latham's stationery, after what I've explicitly said to the contrary; or that I'm not aware that armory is regulated in Scotland; or that I don't know the first thing about the Stodart system (we've touched lightly on it in Talk:Cadency at least).
Nor am I the one complaining that the article is non-neutral, though I would be pleased if you'd raise your head a little and recognize that Lyon is not the last word on armory throughout the world — ever hear of a little place called Poland? I'm the one who said that the article is unnecessary and its thesis, as worded, inaccurate, unless it's a mere fluke when two members of the same family bear related arms. —Tamfang 03:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not "all descendants in the male line plus females" either. That is unheard of.
What is unheard-of: the practice of granting arms to the deceased in general, or the precise practice as I attempted to formulate it? If the latter, can you provide a more accurate formulation? Or am I hopelessly deluded for thinking that armory has anything to do with heredity? —Tamfang 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, arms have certainly been granted to dead people. Lord Lyon is excellent but has historically made errors.
So are you saying arms are never intentionally granted to the dead? —Tamfang 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Different subjects. I come back to where we were. Can we site sources if this is in any way non-neutral? Kittybrewster 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sources for what, if what is non-neutral? —Tamfang 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sneftel was saying that the statement that family crests do not exist is somehow controversial or not NPOV. Which is not correct. Nor are a number of Tamfang statements on this page. Kittybrewster 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask you again: is armory not hereditary (subject to matriculation with appropriate differences, to save you the trouble of raising that distraction again) in your world? —Tamfang 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It is sequentially hereditary. That is to say all legitimate descendants may be able to inherit but not necessarily at once or without necessary permissions. But if you imagine a family with Grandfather (GF) with 2 sons (S1 and S2), S1 also having 2 sons (S1a and S1b), it is fine for S1 to use GF's arms while GF is alive (with a 3 pointed label) and S1a to use GF's arms with a 5 pointed label. When GF dies, S1 inherits GF's arms and S1a takes on the 3 pointed label. But it would be heraldically confusing for GF's arms to be inherited by S1, S2 having used Arms with differentiation #1, S1b also wanting to use S1's arms with the same differentiation. It does not happen in Scotland. Kittybrewster 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So – humor me for a moment more – how do S2 and S1b get their arms? By fresh grants, as if they had no known ancestors? —Tamfang 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Each applies to the appropriate heraldic authority who will give them a grant of arms which will in some way reflect their armigerous ancestor. Kittybrewster 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so the content of the new grant has something to do with their membership in a family? —Tamfang 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No. A grant is made to a person or corporation because he or it is thought worthy of bearing arms.
I said the content of the new grant, not the grounds for the new grant. —Tamfang 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The content may be affected by the country where the arms are being matriculated and by whether the person or corporation applying is descended from an armiger. Kittybrewster 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If the person applying to matriculate is descended from an armiger, the Heraldic authority is likely to acknowledge that descendancy in the arms chosen.
Wasn't it you who said the differences used are rigidly specified according to the Stodart system (though you didn't say Stodart)? How can that be the case if a family allusion is merely "likely"? —Tamfang 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
In Scotland I would think it is invariable practice but it is not in other countries. Kittybrewster 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely nobody worthy of such a grant would seek to use somebody else's arms (usurping arms) or to use arms of their own creation (bogus arms).
Keep punching, you've got that straw man on the ropes. —Tamfang 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There might also be an acknowledgement of the field of accomplishment of the party matriculating. Kittybrewster 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I raised the question of grants to ancestors in rec.heraldry; answers were inconclusive. [7] —Tamfang 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] usurping/bogus arms

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you intend to add some content to usurping arms beyond the definition that's already here, but the concept of bogus arms is both parochial (it applies only within the jurisdiction of an arms-granting authority) and irrelevant to the topic (someone assuming an originally-designed coat of arms is obviously not purporting to use another's "family arms"). —Tamfang 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rec.heraldry faq

Language could usefully be borrowed from [8]. —Tamfang 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Anton. Francois did a great job with that one.--Evadb 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger discussion

'Strong Agree - Since no one has started the talk about the discussion, then I will. I think it's a brilliant idea!!! Lets do this ASAP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2006

(Please sign your comments with four tildes.) Well, we've tried redirecting it to Crest (heraldry), but somehow that didn't stick .. —Tamfang 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - I think that the article ought to be merged. An article about actual heraldic crests would lead quite well into discussion about supposed "family crests."--Evadb 15:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Support with reservation. Crest isn't the best place for this material, either, since it's not really about crests! I've broken off the last paragraph of Heraldry#Origins and history into a new section (provisionally titled "Rights and wrongs") into which I'd put this material. —Tamfang 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Qualified Disagree. There might be a place for some of this information under the Heraldry article, but I think it would merge better with Coat of arms. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm still here

Even in Scotland, crests are not differenced, and the bearing of a differenced coat of arms does signify membership in a family. In some countries, all members of a lineage bear exactly the same arms and crest. So it is not true that "there is no such thing as a family crest" no matter how many times you write it; and every time you write it, I'm going to alter it in an attempt to make it accurate. If you can't work with me on this, I'll have to work against you, and the result will continue to be unsatisfactory all around. —Tamfang 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is not true in Poland that "so far as heraldic purists are concerned", I am inclined to think there are no heraldic purists in Poland. It is certainly true of heraldic purists outside Scotland. Kittybrewster 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Polish coats of arms are shared by multiple families. That practice is not impure, it's merely different. (I hope we can get comments from someone better acquainted with armory of Germany and Scandinavia.) —Tamfang 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." —Caesar and Cleopatra
I would be very interested to read an article explaining how coats of arms pass within Polish families. Kittybrewster 00:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been reading the entry British Peerage which spells out that Britain is quite different from Europe in that in Europe entire families are ennobled, while in Britain ennoblement is on an individual only. From which it would seem that in Britain there is no such thing ... while in Europe this is not the case. I think this squares the circle? Kittybrewster 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Likely the two phenomena are related, yes. —Tamfang 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June thread

Instead of continuing to argue, could this article have separate sections from both of your points of view ... one section written by each of you? To explain WHY yours is a valid truth, you simply have to start your section with a heading like "Heraldry in England" ... how can this be possible you ask? Perhaps there is no NPOV. If Kitty is English, then what she says is true (except that I think she is still using the word crest to mean "arms", which is why I got into this argument in the first place) If sneftel is German, then he could write the section called "Heraldry in Germany", (yes, I know you wouldn't type it like that. I'm just an ignorant southern Yank.) and what he says is true as well.

And ALL of this could be contained in the "Heraldry" article, and there could be links to that from the "family crest" and "family coats of arms" section. And I'm glad to see that the argument has subsided since February. And I guess this is a very big planet after all. And life is good. and... and... Leesonma 04:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kitty is British, living in England and Scotland which are different heraldic jurisdictions. In both, there is no such thing as a "family crest". Tamfang says there may be in other parts of Europe and that in parts of Europe it is entire families rather than individuals that are made armigerous (which is not so in UK). - Kittybrewster 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exceptio probat regulum in casibus non exceptis

Boutell's Heraldry (edition of 1978 by Brooke-Little) p.123: "Persons of illegitimate birth may not assume at will the arms of their putative father with an appropriate difference. They must prove their paternity, and petition for the arms to be granted." —Tamfang 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In England that would be correct. In Scotland that applies also to legitimate people. - Kittybrewster 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)