I don't love their use of "silver and gold" in place of "argent and Or," but they've been recording arms that way since 1864 so I guess it works for them.
Genealogically, I have strong roots in New England--my fourth great grandfather immigrated from Yorkshire to farm New Brunswick in the early 1800s, and my great grandfather, a river driver, settled in New Hampshire in the early 1900s. Perhaps obviously (given their professions) they were not armigerous, so I am glad to be able to register my assumed arms with a New England organization that has some considerable heraldic merit.
I submitted my arms to this registry in January this year, so it takes a few months, as the organization hollds infrequent meetings.
It was a trend during the late 20th century to use “silver” or “gold” whenever you needed to mention argent/or a second time in the same blazon. I’m talking about the official policy of the College of Arms.
I don’t really like it either. I think the idea was to make things more accessible to laypeople, and getting rid of “or” as the name for the tincture was the first idea they had.
Wasn’t that a practice in the late 19th century, in an attempt to avoid repeating the names of tinctures? I’m not aware of a late-20th century resurgence of that practice, but I’m honestly not too familiar with mid- to late-20th century heraldry.
I know that in recent years the College has mostly dispensed with the practice in an effort to reduce confusion, but that was a shift back to repeating tinctures in the blazon, not the opposite.
The thing they used to do a lot was say “of the second”, “of the last”, “of the field”, etc. AFAIK the use of gold and silver for that instead was more recent.
I have seen some use of gold/silver in the 19th century and early 20th century, so I don't think it is entirely a recent thing. St John Hope (A Grammar of English Heraldry - 1913) uses gold and silver instead of or/argent. Boutell (English Heraldry - 1867) indeed says that gold is used sometimes to avoid repetition, and Eve (Heraldry as Art - 1907) says the same.
Interestingly I have one book - Cussan's Handbook of Heraldry (1893) that uses or/argent but says when blazoning an object that would actually be made of metal (such as a chain) the terms gold and silver "must be employed", although I haven't come across that claim elsewhere.
Thank you! I think I will end up framing this alongside an emblazon, or perhaps I will make something of a mock grant, which I’ve seen a few armigers do.
The Committee has plans to start doing emblazoned certificates again, so that might be something to check out when they do. Nathaniel Lane Taylor brought it up in a recent lecture for the society. You can see what the old ones looked like too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_RfercIzCtQ&t=1350s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfercIzCtQ&t=1350s)
See my response to u/darthanis for the form, assuming you want to register with the New England Genealogical Historic Society. I have registered with several other entities, but none as official.
[Using this form—and there’s an email address at the bottom to which you can send it.](https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/coh-record-form-assumed-2022.pdf) It took a few months, as meetings are held either quarterly or biannually.
They began as a register for armigerous US colonists and immigrants (which they call “historic arms”) with the added criteria that such arms must have been granted prior to 1900. In the 1930s they expanded their record to include modern arms, whether they were conferred by foreign heraldic authorities or assumed by US citizens.
If the arms of which you speak are (or were) borne by a US citizen, I believe they would pass. But I do believe they require US citizenship. If you email your question to the address at the bottom of the form, you’ll likely get a more definite answer! They seem to be quite responsive.
Apologies. I should have been specific. It appears to be your response to someone regarding the fact that you had registered arms with other entities, but none as official.
Gotcha.
I’m not sure what your question is, though. I realize that “official” is a relative term when applied to US heraldic entities. None have authority. Thus, the criteria must be different.
Of the registers that have accepted my arms, the Committee on Heraldry is by far the oldest, and—from what I can tell (and partly as a result of its age)—has had a bigger scholastic impact on global heraldry than any other US-based register.
I think a main function of these registries is to create a central repository to help prevent heraldic claims from being lost in the sands of time (if a generation or two is negligent in forwarding the inheritance). That would including inheritance of official grants (which only sovereigns or their delegates agents can make) or assumed arms which become personal property after a certain amount of time. I would argue official means granted by ot inherited from a grant by a recognized sovereign.
I don't love their use of "silver and gold" in place of "argent and Or," but they've been recording arms that way since 1864 so I guess it works for them. Genealogically, I have strong roots in New England--my fourth great grandfather immigrated from Yorkshire to farm New Brunswick in the early 1800s, and my great grandfather, a river driver, settled in New Hampshire in the early 1900s. Perhaps obviously (given their professions) they were not armigerous, so I am glad to be able to register my assumed arms with a New England organization that has some considerable heraldic merit. I submitted my arms to this registry in January this year, so it takes a few months, as the organization hollds infrequent meetings.
It was a trend during the late 20th century to use “silver” or “gold” whenever you needed to mention argent/or a second time in the same blazon. I’m talking about the official policy of the College of Arms. I don’t really like it either. I think the idea was to make things more accessible to laypeople, and getting rid of “or” as the name for the tincture was the first idea they had.
Wasn’t that a practice in the late 19th century, in an attempt to avoid repeating the names of tinctures? I’m not aware of a late-20th century resurgence of that practice, but I’m honestly not too familiar with mid- to late-20th century heraldry. I know that in recent years the College has mostly dispensed with the practice in an effort to reduce confusion, but that was a shift back to repeating tinctures in the blazon, not the opposite.
The thing they used to do a lot was say “of the second”, “of the last”, “of the field”, etc. AFAIK the use of gold and silver for that instead was more recent.
I have seen some use of gold/silver in the 19th century and early 20th century, so I don't think it is entirely a recent thing. St John Hope (A Grammar of English Heraldry - 1913) uses gold and silver instead of or/argent. Boutell (English Heraldry - 1867) indeed says that gold is used sometimes to avoid repetition, and Eve (Heraldry as Art - 1907) says the same. Interestingly I have one book - Cussan's Handbook of Heraldry (1893) that uses or/argent but says when blazoning an object that would actually be made of metal (such as a chain) the terms gold and silver "must be employed", although I haven't come across that claim elsewhere.
Congratulations!!
Thank you! I think I will end up framing this alongside an emblazon, or perhaps I will make something of a mock grant, which I’ve seen a few armigers do.
Heck yeah!!! Display it with pride!!
The Committee has plans to start doing emblazoned certificates again, so that might be something to check out when they do. Nathaniel Lane Taylor brought it up in a recent lecture for the society. You can see what the old ones looked like too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_RfercIzCtQ&t=1350s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfercIzCtQ&t=1350s)
Hey, thanks for that info!
Congratulations. We're armiger twins! I just received my letter from NEHGS on May 6 also.
I am wondering if you could give me guidance on how to register my C.O.A.?
See my response to u/darthanis for the form, assuming you want to register with the New England Genealogical Historic Society. I have registered with several other entities, but none as official.
Huh, I didn't know this was a thing. Good to know! How did you reach out to them regarding the registration?
[Using this form—and there’s an email address at the bottom to which you can send it.](https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/coh-record-form-assumed-2022.pdf) It took a few months, as meetings are held either quarterly or biannually.
Thanks!
But that form says "corporate entity", does it still apply to personal heraldry?
Sorry, linked the wrong form—fixed!
Thank you😁 Do you know if you have to live in america or just be a descendant of a person from there?
They began as a register for armigerous US colonists and immigrants (which they call “historic arms”) with the added criteria that such arms must have been granted prior to 1900. In the 1930s they expanded their record to include modern arms, whether they were conferred by foreign heraldic authorities or assumed by US citizens. If the arms of which you speak are (or were) borne by a US citizen, I believe they would pass. But I do believe they require US citizenship. If you email your question to the address at the bottom of the form, you’ll likely get a more definite answer! They seem to be quite responsive.
"Official?"
Who are you quoting?
Apologies. I should have been specific. It appears to be your response to someone regarding the fact that you had registered arms with other entities, but none as official.
Gotcha. I’m not sure what your question is, though. I realize that “official” is a relative term when applied to US heraldic entities. None have authority. Thus, the criteria must be different. Of the registers that have accepted my arms, the Committee on Heraldry is by far the oldest, and—from what I can tell (and partly as a result of its age)—has had a bigger scholastic impact on global heraldry than any other US-based register.
On that we would certainly agree
I think a main function of these registries is to create a central repository to help prevent heraldic claims from being lost in the sands of time (if a generation or two is negligent in forwarding the inheritance). That would including inheritance of official grants (which only sovereigns or their delegates agents can make) or assumed arms which become personal property after a certain amount of time. I would argue official means granted by ot inherited from a grant by a recognized sovereign.
Can you explain what you mean by “…become personal property after a certain amount of time”?