KINCAID-L Archives
Archiver > KINCAID > 2001-05 > 0989036441
From:
Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Kincaid Coat of Arms
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:20:41 EDT
Peter's message is right on target. However, many people may not be aware of
the difference between a "coat of arms" which is the property of one
individual and a clan badge which can be used by all members of the clan.
A "coat of arms" was originally the cloth surcoat worn over armor which
identified the individual wearer. It now generally refers to the either the
shield alone (and the devices or designs on that shield) or the full
"achievement." The "achievement" consists of : the shield; the helmet
resting upon the shield; the loose mantling that flows from the top of the
helmet; a crest wreath (a twisted piece of cloth in 2 colors) and a crest,
which represents the three-dimensional image that sits on top of the helmet.
Knights would wear these fanciful "crests" on top of their helmets during
tournaments--but not in actual combat.
Whether refering to the shield (and the charges upon that shield) or the full
achievement, many countries have statutes that regulate the granting and use
of "coats of arms." In all cases, the coat of arms is the property of one
individual and NOT the entire family.
It is my understanding that under Scottish law, ALL clan members can use the
"badge" which consists of the crest (again, the device that sat on top of the
helmet) IF IT IS bounded by the belt strap and buckle. The emblem you see on
the Kincaid website is a "badge."
The United States does not have any laws governing the use of heraldic
devices. Therefore, practically speaking, an American citizen (at least
while on American soil) could assume any arms that he or she wanted.
However, improperly using arms in another country (or perhaps upon the
internet) could subject the user to prosecution.
Even if not subject to prosecution, it is considered "bad taste" to use arms
that properly belong to someone else under another country's laws.
It is my understanding that at the formation of the United States, Congress
initially considered the establishment of an American College of Arms that
would be empowered to grant and regulate the use of heraldic devices.
However, the issue was dropped because of the generally feeling at that time
that heraldry was not appropriate for a republic as it smacked too much of
royalty and the old world.
Peter--do you have anything else you want to add?
Best wishes! Ron Gwinn
This thread: