Vessant coat of arms?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Vessant coat of arms?
Hello fellow genealogists
I am trying to track down resources on my family, the Vessants. In
particular, I'm looking for a coat of arms. At this point, I'm looking for
*any* coats of arms that there are, and if I collect a few, well, I'll
narrow it down. Ultimately, I'm looking for something to mount in my study.
I have a stag that I shot (its head anyway), because I believe that in the
middle ages the stag was the emblem of the Vessants, and a fine painting of
my home town, but the coat of arms is the thing I am really looking for to
top it off. I know it's vain, so please don't flame me. The study is the
only place I allow my vanity to so nakedly show.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
I am trying to track down resources on my family, the Vessants. In
particular, I'm looking for a coat of arms. At this point, I'm looking for
*any* coats of arms that there are, and if I collect a few, well, I'll
narrow it down. Ultimately, I'm looking for something to mount in my study.
I have a stag that I shot (its head anyway), because I believe that in the
middle ages the stag was the emblem of the Vessants, and a fine painting of
my home town, but the coat of arms is the thing I am really looking for to
top it off. I know it's vain, so please don't flame me. The study is the
only place I allow my vanity to so nakedly show.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 24 Nov 2004 14:56:45 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was ever
one awarded and to whom.
Hello fellow genealogists
I am trying to track down resources on my family, the Vessants. In
particular, I'm looking for a coat of arms. At this point, I'm looking for
*any* coats of arms that there are, and if I collect a few, well, I'll
narrow it down. Ultimately, I'm looking for something to mount in my study.
I have a stag that I shot (its head anyway), because I believe that in the
middle ages the stag was the emblem of the Vessants, and a fine painting of
my home town, but the coat of arms is the thing I am really looking for to
top it off. I know it's vain, so please don't flame me. The study is the
only place I allow my vanity to so nakedly show.
A coat of arms was awarded to a specific *person* and *not* to a name.
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was ever
one awarded and to whom.
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:30iub4F308jvgU1@uni-berlin.de:
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
I found with these people:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/4crests/coatofarmsuv.html
that there is some sort of Vessant coat but they don't describe it.
These fellows have one:
http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_ ... &s=Vessant
but it doesn't appear to feature a stag. I'm not at all sure we *are* the
Middlesex Vessants, but as I said, I'll take what there is and boil it down
afterwards.
Anyone else help me?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
On 24 Nov 2004 14:56:45 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Hello fellow genealogists
I am trying to track down resources on my family, the Vessants. In
particular, I'm looking for a coat of arms. At this point, I'm
looking for *any* coats of arms that there are, and if I collect a
few, well, I'll narrow it down. Ultimately, I'm looking for something
to mount in my study. I have a stag that I shot (its head anyway),
because I believe that in the middle ages the stag was the emblem of
the Vessants, and a fine painting of my home town, but the coat of
arms is the thing I am really looking for to top it off. I know it's
vain, so please don't flame me. The study is the only place I allow
my vanity to so nakedly show.
A coat of arms was awarded to a specific *person* and *not* to a name.
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was ever
one awarded and to whom.
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
I found with these people:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/4crests/coatofarmsuv.html
that there is some sort of Vessant coat but they don't describe it.
These fellows have one:
http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_ ... &s=Vessant
but it doesn't appear to feature a stag. I'm not at all sure we *are* the
Middlesex Vessants, but as I said, I'll take what there is and boil it down
afterwards.
Anyone else help me?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABCBBE224F3buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
Ask all you want, but that will not change the fact that a coat of arms was
granted to a person not a family.
It also will not change the fact that you would not have the right to use
UNLESS you me the proper qualifications.
A. W.
news:Xns95ABCBBE224F3buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
A coat of arms was awarded to a specific *person* and *not* to a name.
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was ever
one awarded and to whom.
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for
someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim
whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
Ask all you want, but that will not change the fact that a coat of arms was
granted to a person not a family.
It also will not change the fact that you would not have the right to use
UNLESS you me the proper qualifications.
A. W.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 24 Nov 2004 18:09:36 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
It *is* serious.
If you go around displaying a coat of arms or making any claim that
it's yours, you can end up getting sued. OK, it might be unlikely but
it could happen, because you do not have the right to those arms.
I, for one, wouldn't. There is a coat of arms for one of my
ancestors, however, it was not awarded to me and I have no right to
it, even as a direct descendant. If ever I was in a position to be
awarded a Coat of Arms, then I could apply to use the existing Arms
*as the basis* of my own but it would have to have a variation to it.
You obviously aren't really interested in genealogy or family history
because you don't "claim" an ancestor just because he happened to have
a "nice shield".
They are in business to fleece people like you. They can reproduce a
coat of arms but it wouldn't be yours, nor would it ever make it
yours. There's a very good chance that they'd make something up just
to suit you but it wouldn't be authentic, genuine or give you the
right to bear them.
You have to earn the right to a coat of arms, not commandeer one just
because it looks nice or fits with what you want.
It would also be registered at the College of Arms and they are the
only authority on Arms and when and to whom they were awarded.
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
It *is* serious.
If you go around displaying a coat of arms or making any claim that
it's yours, you can end up getting sued. OK, it might be unlikely but
it could happen, because you do not have the right to those arms.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
I, for one, wouldn't. There is a coat of arms for one of my
ancestors, however, it was not awarded to me and I have no right to
it, even as a direct descendant. If ever I was in a position to be
awarded a Coat of Arms, then I could apply to use the existing Arms
*as the basis* of my own but it would have to have a variation to it.
You obviously aren't really interested in genealogy or family history
because you don't "claim" an ancestor just because he happened to have
a "nice shield".
I found with these people:
I found with these people:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/4crests/coatofarmsuv.html
These fellows have one:
http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_ ... &s=Vessant
They are in business to fleece people like you. They can reproduce a
coat of arms but it wouldn't be yours, nor would it ever make it
yours. There's a very good chance that they'd make something up just
to suit you but it wouldn't be authentic, genuine or give you the
right to bear them.
You have to earn the right to a coat of arms, not commandeer one just
because it looks nice or fits with what you want.
It would also be registered at the College of Arms and they are the
only authority on Arms and when and to whom they were awarded.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
awnospamj@ev1.net <figment@ev1.net> wrote:
As you sound knowlegeable concerning CoA's, I am curious about them.
How are they awarded? Who comes up with the designs? Are they awarded for
military service? Is there a way to verify that a CoA is authentic? Thank
you for your time in answering my questions.
Ask all you want, but that will not change the fact that a coat of
arms was granted to a person not a family.
It also will not change the fact that you would not have the right to
use UNLESS you me the proper qualifications.
A. W.
As you sound knowlegeable concerning CoA's, I am curious about them.
How are they awarded? Who comes up with the designs? Are they awarded for
military service? Is there a way to verify that a CoA is authentic? Thank
you for your time in answering my questions.
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in
news:10q8u6hfqqe1nac@corp.supernews.com:
You need qualifications? Like a degree. Do you have to present them to the
people who run the websites?
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:10q8u6hfqqe1nac@corp.supernews.com:
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABCBBE224F3buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
A coat of arms was awarded to a specific *person* and *not* to a
name.
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was
ever one awarded and to whom.
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for
someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim
whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
Ask all you want, but that will not change the fact that a coat of
arms was granted to a person not a family.
It also will not change the fact that you would not have the right to
use UNLESS you me the proper qualifications.
A. W.
You need qualifications? Like a degree. Do you have to present them to the
people who run the websites?
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:30jlfhF313i32U1@uni-berlin.de:
Good lord! Are there inspectors? How would they gain entrance to my study?
So you'd definitely advise locking the study so that no one could enter
without my knowledge? I wouldn't want to be sued again. The experience was
educational but not enjoyable.
Well, I doubt there were many Charanis in those days.
Why on earth not? You'd have inherited his wealth, if he had any.
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up, you
could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
I don't very much care for your tone. I am very interested in family
history. Did I not say that I proudly display a painting of my ancestral
home in my study? It's not just any town. It is the birthplace of the
earliest of my family that I have been able to trace.
Just because I do not understand this heraldry business quite in the same
terms as you is no cause whatsoever for decrying my interest.
It would look nice on the wall of the study though. Is there no allowance
for the aesthetics?
Well, can't I just not tell anyone?
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
On 24 Nov 2004 18:09:36 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
It *is* serious.
If you go around displaying a coat of arms or making any claim that
it's yours, you can end up getting sued.
Good lord! Are there inspectors? How would they gain entrance to my study?
OK, it might be unlikely but
it could happen, because you do not have the right to those arms.
So you'd definitely advise locking the study so that no one could enter
without my knowledge? I wouldn't want to be sued again. The experience was
educational but not enjoyable.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for
someone with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us
claim whoever for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
I, for one, wouldn't.
Well, I doubt there were many Charanis in those days.
There is a coat of arms for one of my
ancestors, however, it was not awarded to me and I have no right to
it, even as a direct descendant.
Why on earth not? You'd have inherited his wealth, if he had any.
If ever I was in a position to be
awarded a Coat of Arms, then I could apply to use the existing Arms
*as the basis* of my own but it would have to have a variation to it.
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up, you
could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
You obviously aren't really interested in genealogy or family history
because you don't "claim" an ancestor just because he happened to have
a "nice shield".
I don't very much care for your tone. I am very interested in family
history. Did I not say that I proudly display a painting of my ancestral
home in my study? It's not just any town. It is the birthplace of the
earliest of my family that I have been able to trace.
Just because I do not understand this heraldry business quite in the same
terms as you is no cause whatsoever for decrying my interest.
I found with these people:
I found with these people:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/4crests/coatofarmsuv.html
These fellows have one:
http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_ ... &s=Vessant
They are in business to fleece people like you. They can reproduce a
coat of arms but it wouldn't be yours, nor would it ever make it
yours. There's a very good chance that they'd make something up just
to suit you but it wouldn't be authentic, genuine or give you the
right to bear them.
It would look nice on the wall of the study though. Is there no allowance
for the aesthetics?
You have to earn the right to a coat of arms, not commandeer one just
because it looks nice or fits with what you want.
Well, can't I just not tell anyone?
It would also be registered at the College of Arms and they are the
only authority on Arms and when and to whom they were awarded.
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Dani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
You should probably post this querey in news:rec.heraldry.
Somebody over there should be able to help you.
Just a suggestion,
Dani
Somebody over there should be able to help you.
Just a suggestion,
Dani
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Do you mean my query Dani?
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:naapd.12525$Uf.1409@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:naapd.12525$Uf.1409@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
You should probably post this querey in news:rec.heraldry.
Somebody over there should be able to help you.
Just a suggestion,
Dani
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:naapd.12525$Uf.1409@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
Thanks for the kind suggestion, Dani. I'll give it a go.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:naapd.12525$Uf.1409@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
You should probably post this querey in news:rec.heraldry.
Somebody over there should be able to help you.
Just a suggestion,
Dani
Thanks for the kind suggestion, Dani. I'll give it a go.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
This would also be a good idea for you as well. You can also go to the
following http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk to answer many questions.
A. W.
"James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HLapd.722$Ua.558@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
following http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk to answer many questions.
A. W.
"James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HLapd.722$Ua.558@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Do you mean my query Dani?
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:naapd.12525$Uf.1409@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
You should probably post this querey in news:rec.heraldry.
Somebody over there should be able to help you.
Just a suggestion,
Dani
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:35:30 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
It's OK, IMO, to look up the Vessant arms, especially if the armigerous
(arms bearing) individual is an ancestor; for that matter, it's OK to
look'em up out of pure curiosity. Unfortunately, the arms no longer pass
from generation to generation, so you can't display the Vessant arms and
claim'em as yours by right of inheritance. It's OK to display those
historic arms, however, in the context of family history -- you just can't
put'em on the gateposts to your manse, wear'em on your blazer, emboss'em
on your stationery or in any way use/display'em in such a way as implies
you are claiming them as your very own.
I think this is what Charani was trying to say in her reply to your
posting.
Beyond that argument, I have to say that all the mail order heraldry
companies, all the websites advertising family coats of arms are in it for
a quick buck and generally do no real research into the subject. They
have a list of names and arms that may or may not relate and rely on the
gullibility of the US public and its fascination with things
"aristocratic". Personally, I'd run in the opposite direction. Your
best bet, if you've traced your family that far back, it to contact the
Royal College of Heralds for information regarding the arms your ancestor
may have borne. This might cost you a buck or two but you'd have the
satisfaction of knowing the information was accurate and the arms
authentic.
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in
news:10q8u6hfqqe1nac@corp.supernews.com:
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABCBBE224F3buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
A coat of arms was awarded to a specific *person* and *not* to a
name.
There may well be a coat of arms for someone in your family but you
wouldn't have the right to display or use it.
Try writing to the College of Arms in London to see if there was
ever one awarded and to whom.
Thanks very much for the kind answer, Charani.
All that seems a bit serious.
Now, let me ask again whether anyone knows of any coats of arms for
someone
with the name Vessant, because let's face it, we'd most of us claim
whoever
for an ancestor if they came with a nice shield.
Ask all you want, but that will not change the fact that a coat of
arms was granted to a person not a family.
It also will not change the fact that you would not have the right to
use UNLESS you me the proper qualifications.
A. W.
You need qualifications? Like a degree. Do you have to present them to the
people who run the websites?
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
It's OK, IMO, to look up the Vessant arms, especially if the armigerous
(arms bearing) individual is an ancestor; for that matter, it's OK to
look'em up out of pure curiosity. Unfortunately, the arms no longer pass
from generation to generation, so you can't display the Vessant arms and
claim'em as yours by right of inheritance. It's OK to display those
historic arms, however, in the context of family history -- you just can't
put'em on the gateposts to your manse, wear'em on your blazer, emboss'em
on your stationery or in any way use/display'em in such a way as implies
you are claiming them as your very own.
I think this is what Charani was trying to say in her reply to your
posting.
Beyond that argument, I have to say that all the mail order heraldry
companies, all the websites advertising family coats of arms are in it for
a quick buck and generally do no real research into the subject. They
have a list of names and arms that may or may not relate and rely on the
gullibility of the US public and its fascination with things
"aristocratic". Personally, I'd run in the opposite direction. Your
best bet, if you've traced your family that far back, it to contact the
Royal College of Heralds for information regarding the arms your ancestor
may have borne. This might cost you a buck or two but you'd have the
satisfaction of knowing the information was accurate and the arms
authentic.
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 25 Nov 2004 08:42:29 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
who would just leave it in the study where you would have it on
display. That is claiming it as yours which it isn't.
Sarcasm is the lowesst form of wit and the resort of those who know
they are in the wrong.
Since you've apparently been sued before, I would have thought you
would have trod more carefully in the future. Clearly that's not the
case.
Since that happens to be my *first* name and not my surname, your
ignorance is showing.
Why wouldn't I use someone else's coat of arms?? Because, as I have
already said, twice, and as others have said *they don't belong to
me*. Inheriting any wealth he may or may not have had has absolutely
no bearing whatsoever on the right to bear someone else's arms
It isn't just "painted up". There are rules as to what can and cannot
be added to or amended to a coat of arms.
I don't care whether you like my tone or not TBH. If you were so
interested in family history, you'd be considerably more discerning
than you apparently are.
OK, so you have a picture on your wall of somewhere where a family
with the same name as you once lived. Have you actually managed to
trace properly the line from yourself to this family or have you just
assumed that because they have the same name they must be your
ancesstors?
you aren't listening. You want a coat of arms that you can claim as
yours and which includes a stag. It isn't that simple.
It wouldn't be yours and you have no right to display it as though it
was. With regard to coats of arms, no, there is no allowance for the
aesthetics.
If it's on display, even in a room where few people would visit, you
are still telling people.
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
They are well aware of the fraudulent use of coats of arms; and
jealousy is a great motivator.
Good lord! Are there inspectors? How would they gain entrance to my study?
From the way you are talking, you don't sound like the kind of person
who would just leave it in the study where you would have it on
display. That is claiming it as yours which it isn't.
So you'd definitely advise locking the study so that no one could enter
without my knowledge? I wouldn't want to be sued again. The experience was
educational but not enjoyable.
Sarcasm is the lowesst form of wit and the resort of those who know
they are in the wrong.
Since you've apparently been sued before, I would have thought you
would have trod more carefully in the future. Clearly that's not the
case.
Well, I doubt there were many Charanis in those days.
Since that happens to be my *first* name and not my surname, your
ignorance is showing.
There is a coat of arms for one of my
ancestors, however, it was not awarded to me and I have no right to
it, even as a direct descendant.
Why on earth not? You'd have inherited his wealth, if he had any.
Why wouldn't I use someone else's coat of arms?? Because, as I have
already said, twice, and as others have said *they don't belong to
me*. Inheriting any wealth he may or may not have had has absolutely
no bearing whatsoever on the right to bear someone else's arms
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up, you
could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
It isn't just "painted up". There are rules as to what can and cannot
be added to or amended to a coat of arms.
I don't very much care for your tone. I am very interested in family
history. Did I not say that I proudly display a painting of my ancestral
home in my study? It's not just any town. It is the birthplace of the
earliest of my family that I have been able to trace.
I don't care whether you like my tone or not TBH. If you were so
interested in family history, you'd be considerably more discerning
than you apparently are.
OK, so you have a picture on your wall of somewhere where a family
with the same name as you once lived. Have you actually managed to
trace properly the line from yourself to this family or have you just
assumed that because they have the same name they must be your
ancesstors?
Just because I do not understand this heraldry business quite in the same
terms as you is no cause whatsoever for decrying my interest.
I'm not decrying your interest but I am trying to put you right and
you aren't listening. You want a coat of arms that you can claim as
yours and which includes a stag. It isn't that simple.
It would look nice on the wall of the study though. Is there no allowance
for the aesthetics?
It wouldn't be yours and you have no right to display it as though it
was. With regard to coats of arms, no, there is no allowance for the
aesthetics.
Well, can't I just not tell anyone?
If it's on display, even in a room where few people would visit, you
are still telling people.
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
They are well aware of the fraudulent use of coats of arms; and
jealousy is a great motivator.
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30lo7hF32tfcdU1@uni-berlin.de...
Well, you could if you really wanted to - just add a caption saying "Arms
awarded to" whoever. I can appreciate that you don't want to claim someone
else's property, though.
It's a bit like someone putting a print of the Mona Lisa on the wall and
telling everyone that it's the original painting, isn't it...... Just makes
them look foolish.
Lesley Robertson
news:30lo7hF32tfcdU1@uni-berlin.de...
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
Well, you could if you really wanted to - just add a caption saying "Arms
awarded to" whoever. I can appreciate that you don't want to claim someone
else's property, though.
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
They are well aware of the fraudulent use of coats of arms; and
jealousy is a great motivator.
It's a bit like someone putting a print of the Mona Lisa on the wall and
telling everyone that it's the original painting, isn't it...... Just makes
them look foolish.
Lesley Robertson
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 25 Nov 2004 08:35:30 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
No, not like a degree. You need to have been awarded a knighthood or
similar and that is bestowed by the Queen.
It isn't a "piece of decorative art".
You need qualifications? Like a degree. Do you have to present them to the
people who run the websites?
No, not like a degree. You need to have been awarded a knighthood or
similar and that is bestowed by the Queen.
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
It isn't a "piece of decorative art".
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:20:28 GMT, Bob Melson wrote:
8>< snipped
You think exactly right
)
Unfortunately the OP is determined to have a coat of arms which he can
tell friends, incorrectly, belongs to his family and he's not going to
listen to anyone's advice or guidance on the matter.
8>< snipped
I think this is what Charani was trying to say in her reply to your
posting.
8>< snipped
You think exactly right
Unfortunately the OP is determined to have a coat of arms which he can
tell friends, incorrectly, belongs to his family and he's not going to
listen to anyone's advice or guidance on the matter.
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30lv1nF30lnk8U1@uni-berlin.de...
I see nothing wrong with displaying a coat of arms that was legitimately
given to a direct ancestor and describing it as a family coat of arms, even
though it is not "yours", heraldrically or legally. As long as you keep and
enjoy it for yourself, there is no civil penalty or fine. I might consider
a 16th century castle built by an ancestor and lived in by several of his
descendants as my ancestral home, and display a large painting of it in my
study, even though it has been out of the family for a couple hundred years.
I have a half dozen interpretations of coats of arms on file, purportedly
issued to someone with my surname, all of which I consider to be interesting
but fantasies. I presume the original poster now knows how coats of arms
were awarded but still considers them like traditional "family colors" which
can be proudly worn by any descendant of the clan with that surname. There
are rules and then there are rules.
Bruce
news:30lv1nF30lnk8U1@uni-berlin.de...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:20:28 GMT, Bob Melson wrote:
8>< snipped
I think this is what Charani was trying to say in her reply to your
posting.
8>< snipped
You think exactly right)
Unfortunately the OP is determined to have a coat of arms which he can
tell friends, incorrectly, belongs to his family and he's not going to
listen to anyone's advice or guidance on the matter.
I see nothing wrong with displaying a coat of arms that was legitimately
given to a direct ancestor and describing it as a family coat of arms, even
though it is not "yours", heraldrically or legally. As long as you keep and
enjoy it for yourself, there is no civil penalty or fine. I might consider
a 16th century castle built by an ancestor and lived in by several of his
descendants as my ancestral home, and display a large painting of it in my
study, even though it has been out of the family for a couple hundred years.
I have a half dozen interpretations of coats of arms on file, purportedly
issued to someone with my surname, all of which I consider to be interesting
but fantasies. I presume the original poster now knows how coats of arms
were awarded but still considers them like traditional "family colors" which
can be proudly worn by any descendant of the clan with that surname. There
are rules and then there are rules.
Bruce
-
Plymouth Rock
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 25 Nov 2004 08:35:30 +0800, "Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
Arms are not decorative art. Their original purpose was deadly serious. Armored
knights could not easily be distinguished one from another, nor friend from foe.
Arms identified their bearer. Think of how the distictive paint job on a Nextel
cup car allows a spectator to instantly recognize the car and hence the driver.
wrote:
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
Arms are not decorative art. Their original purpose was deadly serious. Armored
knights could not easily be distinguished one from another, nor friend from foe.
Arms identified their bearer. Think of how the distictive paint job on a Nextel
cup car allows a spectator to instantly recognize the car and hence the driver.
-
Plymouth Rock
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 25 Nov 2004 08:42:29 +0800, "Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
You have obviously never studied heraldry.
wrote:
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up, you
could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
You have obviously never studied heraldry.
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:50:49 +0000, Charani wrote:
<snip>
You may not be entitled to wear the arms or to use them in any way
that would imply that they're yours by right of investiture, but you can
certainly display them as a part of the history of your family,
providing you can make (or have made) the connection to that
armigerous ancestor. I proudly display the arms of my Gresham
forebears under just those conditions, but make no claim that I'm
entitled to wear or use them.
<snip>
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
<snip>
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
You may not be entitled to wear the arms or to use them in any way
that would imply that they're yours by right of investiture, but you can
certainly display them as a part of the history of your family,
providing you can make (or have made) the connection to that
armigerous ancestor. I proudly display the arms of my Gresham
forebears under just those conditions, but make no claim that I'm
entitled to wear or use them.
<snip>
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
--
Researching REMICK worldwide.
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/r/ ... ce-Remick/
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.26.01.55.50.244798@earthlink.net...
I think one of the facetious questions the original poster had was in regard
to who "polices" the proper use of coats of arms. Suppose he chooses to
have a painting done and sweatshirts, business cards, etc. made depicting a
coat of arms that may or may not have been awarded to a distant ancestor
with his surname. Other than committing a heraldric faux pas, he would not
face criminal charges from a coat of arms police, even if he openly claims
the arms are his. If he chooses to tell others that the particular coat of
arms is "his", he would merely leave himself open to challenge and question
from anyone familiar with those things. Otherwise, few would likely care
one way or another. No jail time here.
Bruce
Researching REMICK worldwide.
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/r/ ... ce-Remick/
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.26.01.55.50.244798@earthlink.net...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:50:49 +0000, Charani wrote:
snip
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
You may not be entitled to wear the arms or to use them in any way
that would imply that they're yours by right of investiture, but you can
certainly display them as a part of the history of your family,
providing you can make (or have made) the connection to that
armigerous ancestor. I proudly display the arms of my Gresham
forebears under just those conditions, but make no claim that I'm
entitled to wear or use them.
I think one of the facetious questions the original poster had was in regard
to who "polices" the proper use of coats of arms. Suppose he chooses to
have a painting done and sweatshirts, business cards, etc. made depicting a
coat of arms that may or may not have been awarded to a distant ancestor
with his surname. Other than committing a heraldric faux pas, he would not
face criminal charges from a coat of arms police, even if he openly claims
the arms are his. If he chooses to tell others that the particular coat of
arms is "his", he would merely leave himself open to challenge and question
from anyone familiar with those things. Otherwise, few would likely care
one way or another. No jail time here.
Bruce
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:59:24 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
True enough, and I suppose I and others have been looking at the trees and
missing the forest. In the US there's nothing to prevent an individual
from doing whatever he wishes with armorial materials -- certainly, the
heraldry police won't land in his back yard and haul him away for
punishment.
Sigh. It's more fun when people don't come along with _reasonable_
arguments.
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
I think one of the facetious questions the original poster had was in
regard
to who "polices" the proper use of coats of arms. Suppose he chooses to
have a painting done and sweatshirts, business cards, etc. made
depicting
a coat of arms that may or may not have been awarded to a distant
ancestor
with his surname. Other than committing a heraldric faux pas, he would
not face criminal charges from a coat of arms police, even if he openly
claims the arms are his. If he chooses to tell others that the
particular
coat of arms is "his", he would merely leave himself open to challenge
and
question from anyone familiar with those things. Otherwise, few would
likely care one way or another. No jail time here.
Bruce
True enough, and I suppose I and others have been looking at the trees and
missing the forest. In the US there's nothing to prevent an individual
from doing whatever he wishes with armorial materials -- certainly, the
heraldry police won't land in his back yard and haul him away for
punishment.
Sigh. It's more fun when people don't come along with _reasonable_
arguments.
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.26.06.07.51.747997@earthlink.net...
Are there really any (free) countries where improper use or display of a
coat of arms is actually a crime to the extent that the "perp" could face a
fine or even imprisonment? I would think that even the most absurd or
blatently false public claim regarding armorial materials would at best
result in public embarassment for the claimant, but hardly a jail sentence.
But what do I know, other than I won't be claiming any coat of arms outside
the US-- just to be safe.
Bruce
news:pan.2004.11.26.06.07.51.747997@earthlink.net...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:59:24 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
I think one of the facetious questions the original poster had was in
regard
to who "polices" the proper use of coats of arms. Suppose he chooses to
have a painting done and sweatshirts, business cards, etc. made
depicting
a coat of arms that may or may not have been awarded to a distant
ancestor
with his surname. Other than committing a heraldric faux pas, he would
not face criminal charges from a coat of arms police, even if he openly
claims the arms are his. If he chooses to tell others that the
particular
coat of arms is "his", he would merely leave himself open to challenge
and
question from anyone familiar with those things. Otherwise, few would
likely care one way or another. No jail time here.
Bruce
True enough, and I suppose I and others have been looking at the trees and
missing the forest. In the US there's nothing to prevent an individual
from doing whatever he wishes with armorial materials -- certainly, the
heraldry police won't land in his back yard and haul him away for
punishment.
Sigh. It's more fun when people don't come along with _reasonable_
arguments.
Bob
Are there really any (free) countries where improper use or display of a
coat of arms is actually a crime to the extent that the "perp" could face a
fine or even imprisonment? I would think that even the most absurd or
blatently false public claim regarding armorial materials would at best
result in public embarassment for the claimant, but hardly a jail sentence.
But what do I know, other than I won't be claiming any coat of arms outside
the US-- just to be safe.
Bruce
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Y1Hpd.1156$gH3.98@lakeread05...
Arms to take down the arms he was using as he wasn't entitled to them - or
face fines.
Have a look here http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/fayed.html
There's others.
Personally, I don't see the attraction in claiming to own something that
doesn't belong to me. Mind you, I don't see the point of these "send us
money and we'll send you an academic degree by return post" companies
either.
Lesley Robertson
news:Y1Hpd.1156$gH3.98@lakeread05...
Are there really any (free) countries where improper use or display of a
coat of arms is actually a crime to the extent that the "perp" could face
a
fine or even imprisonment? I would think that even the most absurd or
blatently false public claim regarding armorial materials would at best
result in public embarassment for the claimant, but hardly a jail
sentence.
But what do I know, other than I won't be claiming any coat of arms
outside
the US-- just to be safe.
Someone who bought a scottish castle was told by the Court of Lyon King at
Arms to take down the arms he was using as he wasn't entitled to them - or
face fines.
Have a look here http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/fayed.html
There's others.
Personally, I don't see the attraction in claiming to own something that
doesn't belong to me. Mind you, I don't see the point of these "send us
money and we'll send you an academic degree by return post" companies
either.
Lesley Robertson
-
singhals
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Bruce Remick wrote:
I've always thought of it as being dangerous/expensive to the REAL
arms-bearer.
Sort of like today's "identity theft" -- if you're passing yourself off
as the Duke of Blather, and run up hefty debts both financial and
personal under that name, some unsuspecting soul could try to recover
from the REAL Duke of Blather who would be understandably irate at being
asked to repay favors he never gave or to cover debts he didn't run up.
Or say you as the Duke of Blather "ruin" some flower of monied parents?
Papa could oil up the trusty-rusty and go looking for the Duke himself (
coup if the Duke is unmarried and in financial straits, of course, but
otherwise a bit of a nuisance?).
Cheryl
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.26.06.07.51.747997@earthlink.net...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:59:24 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
I think one of the facetious questions the original poster had was in
regard
to who "polices" the proper use of coats of arms. Suppose he chooses to
have a painting done and sweatshirts, business cards, etc. made
depicting
a coat of arms that may or may not have been awarded to a distant
ancestor
with his surname. Other than committing a heraldric faux pas, he would
not face criminal charges from a coat of arms police, even if he openly
claims the arms are his. If he chooses to tell others that the
particular
coat of arms is "his", he would merely leave himself open to challenge
and
question from anyone familiar with those things. Otherwise, few would
likely care one way or another. No jail time here.
Bruce
True enough, and I suppose I and others have been looking at the trees and
missing the forest. In the US there's nothing to prevent an individual
from doing whatever he wishes with armorial materials -- certainly, the
heraldry police won't land in his back yard and haul him away for
punishment.
Sigh. It's more fun when people don't come along with _reasonable_
arguments.
Bob
Are there really any (free) countries where improper use or display of a
coat of arms is actually a crime to the extent that the "perp" could face a
fine or even imprisonment? I would think that even the most absurd or
blatently false public claim regarding armorial materials would at best
result in public embarassment for the claimant, but hardly a jail sentence.
But what do I know, other than I won't be claiming any coat of arms outside
the US-- just to be safe.
Bruce
I've always thought of it as being dangerous/expensive to the REAL
arms-bearer.
Sort of like today's "identity theft" -- if you're passing yourself off
as the Duke of Blather, and run up hefty debts both financial and
personal under that name, some unsuspecting soul could try to recover
from the REAL Duke of Blather who would be understandably irate at being
asked to repay favors he never gave or to cover debts he didn't run up.
Or say you as the Duke of Blather "ruin" some flower of monied parents?
Papa could oil up the trusty-rusty and go looking for the Duke himself (
coup if the Duke is unmarried and in financial straits, of course, but
otherwise a bit of a nuisance?).
Cheryl
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
MisNomer <misnomer@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:q4qaq0d8k6t46k9qenup8feamu3k7m1d1u@4ax.com:
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:q4qaq0d8k6t46k9qenup8feamu3k7m1d1u@4ax.com:
I will design you one if you want.
take care
Liz
On 24 Nov 2004 14:56:45 +0800, "Freddy R. Vessant"
freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello fellow genealogists
I am trying to track down resources on my family, the Vessants. In
particular, I'm looking for a coat of arms. At this point, I'm looking
for *any* coats of arms that there are, and if I collect a few, well,
I'll narrow it down. Ultimately, I'm looking for something to mount in
my study. I have a stag that I shot (its head anyway), because I
believe that in the middle ages the stag was the emblem of the
Vessants, and a fine painting of my home town, but the coat of arms is
the thing I am really looking for to top it off. I know it's vain, so
please don't flame me. The study is the only place I allow my vanity
to so nakedly show.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:30lupkF30e431U1@uni-berlin.de:
Once I hang it in the study, it is.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
On 25 Nov 2004 08:35:30 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
You need qualifications? Like a degree. Do you have to present them
to the people who run the websites?
No, not like a degree. You need to have been awarded a knighthood or
similar and that is bestowed by the Queen.
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
It isn't a "piece of decorative art".
Once I hang it in the study, it is.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Plymouth Rock <plymouthrock_spambegone_@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:a5icq0p6hno9dvjgsqck827ekl45p7unlp@4ax.com:
You know, you're absolutely right. I should not hang my ancestor's coat of
arms in my study because of the confusion it might cause any armoured
knights who wander in there.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:a5icq0p6hno9dvjgsqck827ekl45p7unlp@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2004 08:35:30 +0800, "Freddy R. Vessant"
freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote:
This seems like a lot of trouble for a piece of decorative art.
Arms are not decorative art. Their original purpose was deadly
serious. Armored knights could not easily be distinguished one from
another, nor friend from foe. Arms identified their bearer. Think of
how the distictive paint job on a Nextel cup car allows a spectator to
instantly recognize the car and hence the driver.
You know, you're absolutely right. I should not hang my ancestor's coat of
arms in my study because of the confusion it might cause any armoured
knights who wander in there.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:30lo7hF32tfcdU1@uni-berlin.de:
I wasn't planning to have it painted on my motor, if that's what you mean.
You are so very wrong. Done well, it is a wonderful part of the wit's
repertoire. In any case, I don't believe I am in the wrong. I do not know
how anyone who would care, who must altogether form a vanishingly small
number, would know that I had an illicit coat of arms in my private
chamber.
Well, are we not discussing my chances of getting away with it? I do not
have the coat as yet.
How was I supposed to know you are misrepresenting yourself?
The "right" to bear arms? I have to tell you, madam, that I'm English and
we've always believed your rights are precisely what you can get away with.
Now of course that attitude can and does lead us into trouble, so I am
trying to establish exactly what I'm up against.
Rules? Do you think William the Conqueror played by the rules? Did he
buggery! He fancied a realm, so he made up the rules for himself.
Discerning? I don't just include anyone in my family tree, you know. Lord,
you'd think I was one of these poseurs who claim a distant relationship
with Queen Vic on the basis of a coincidence of names that just *might*
point to a shared cousin. Good lord no! It's all attested Vessants in my
tree.
Well, to be perfectly frank, the world is not so stuffed full of Vessants
that there are that many I'm *not* related to, but even so, there is no
Vessant in my tree that is not a bona fide ancestor.
Well, of course it is. I could simply draw my own. No one would know any
different. I am at least trying to find a proper Vessant coat of arms.
Oh.
Yes, but no one who would rat me out.
Hmmm. So museums that show medals that were not awarded to the curators do
not meet with your approval?
We haven't yet discovered whether there is anything to be jealous of. Yes,
my arms might be a fine stag rampant, but let's face it, what are the
chances?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
On 25 Nov 2004 08:42:29 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Good lord! Are there inspectors? How would they gain entrance to my
study?
From the way you are talking, you don't sound like the kind of person
who would just leave it in the study where you would have it on
display. That is claiming it as yours which it isn't.
I wasn't planning to have it painted on my motor, if that's what you mean.
So you'd definitely advise locking the study so that no one could
enter without my knowledge? I wouldn't want to be sued again. The
experience was educational but not enjoyable.
Sarcasm is the lowesst form of wit and the resort of those who know
they are in the wrong.
You are so very wrong. Done well, it is a wonderful part of the wit's
repertoire. In any case, I don't believe I am in the wrong. I do not know
how anyone who would care, who must altogether form a vanishingly small
number, would know that I had an illicit coat of arms in my private
chamber.
Since you've apparently been sued before, I would have thought you
would have trod more carefully in the future. Clearly that's not the
case.
Well, are we not discussing my chances of getting away with it? I do not
have the coat as yet.
Well, I doubt there were many Charanis in those days.
Since that happens to be my *first* name and not my surname, your
ignorance is showing.
How was I supposed to know you are misrepresenting yourself?
There is a coat of arms for one of my
ancestors, however, it was not awarded to me and I have no right to
it, even as a direct descendant.
Why on earth not? You'd have inherited his wealth, if he had any.
Why wouldn't I use someone else's coat of arms?? Because, as I have
already said, twice, and as others have said *they don't belong to
me*. Inheriting any wealth he may or may not have had has absolutely
no bearing whatsoever on the right to bear someone else's arms
The "right" to bear arms? I have to tell you, madam, that I'm English and
we've always believed your rights are precisely what you can get away with.
Now of course that attitude can and does lead us into trouble, so I am
trying to establish exactly what I'm up against.
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up,
you could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
It isn't just "painted up". There are rules as to what can and cannot
be added to or amended to a coat of arms.
Rules? Do you think William the Conqueror played by the rules? Did he
buggery! He fancied a realm, so he made up the rules for himself.
I don't very much care for your tone. I am very interested in family
history. Did I not say that I proudly display a painting of my
ancestral home in my study? It's not just any town. It is the
birthplace of the earliest of my family that I have been able to
trace.
I don't care whether you like my tone or not TBH. If you were so
interested in family history, you'd be considerably more discerning
than you apparently are.
Discerning? I don't just include anyone in my family tree, you know. Lord,
you'd think I was one of these poseurs who claim a distant relationship
with Queen Vic on the basis of a coincidence of names that just *might*
point to a shared cousin. Good lord no! It's all attested Vessants in my
tree.
OK, so you have a picture on your wall of somewhere where a family
with the same name as you once lived. Have you actually managed to
trace properly the line from yourself to this family or have you just
assumed that because they have the same name they must be your
ancesstors?
Well, to be perfectly frank, the world is not so stuffed full of Vessants
that there are that many I'm *not* related to, but even so, there is no
Vessant in my tree that is not a bona fide ancestor.
Just because I do not understand this heraldry business quite in the
same terms as you is no cause whatsoever for decrying my interest.
I'm not decrying your interest but I am trying to put you right and
you aren't listening. You want a coat of arms that you can claim as
yours and which includes a stag. It isn't that simple.
Well, of course it is. I could simply draw my own. No one would know any
different. I am at least trying to find a proper Vessant coat of arms.
It would look nice on the wall of the study though. Is there no
allowance for the aesthetics?
It wouldn't be yours and you have no right to display it as though it
was. With regard to coats of arms, no, there is no allowance for the
aesthetics.
Oh.
Well, can't I just not tell anyone?
If it's on display, even in a room where few people would visit, you
are still telling people.
Yes, but no one who would rat me out.
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
Hmmm. So museums that show medals that were not awarded to the curators do
not meet with your approval?
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
They are well aware of the fraudulent use of coats of arms; and
jealousy is a great motivator.
We haven't yet discovered whether there is anything to be jealous of. Yes,
my arms might be a fine stag rampant, but let's face it, what are the
chances?
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in
news:co4acd$kf8$1@news.tudelft.nl:
What an unkind thing to say. Some people have reproductions of the Mona
Lisa because it's an attractive painting.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:co4acd$kf8$1@news.tudelft.nl:
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30lo7hF32tfcdU1@uni-berlin.de...
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and
since I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
Well, you could if you really wanted to - just add a caption saying
"Arms awarded to" whoever. I can appreciate that you don't want to
claim someone else's property, though.
They don't have to know! Why would anyone tell them?
They are well aware of the fraudulent use of coats of arms; and
jealousy is a great motivator.
It's a bit like someone putting a print of the Mona Lisa on the wall
and telling everyone that it's the original painting, isn't it......
Just makes them look foolish.
What an unkind thing to say. Some people have reproductions of the Mona
Lisa because it's an attractive painting.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Bob Melson <melsonr@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.26.01.55.50.244798@earthlink.net:
Exactly. I didn't say I was going to saddle up and ride off into battle.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:pan.2004.11.26.01.55.50.244798@earthlink.net:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:50:49 +0000, Charani wrote:
snip
I have a reproduction of the coat of arms awarded to one of my
ancestors which an aunt, who was a terrible snob, bought for my late
father. It's been in a drawer ever since she gave it to him and since
I "inherited" it from him and that's where it's going to stay.
It isn't mine, I have no right to display it anywhere in anyway.
You may not be entitled to wear the arms or to use them in any way
that would imply that they're yours by right of investiture, but you can
certainly display them as a part of the history of your family,
providing you can make (or have made) the connection to that
armigerous ancestor. I proudly display the arms of my Gresham
forebears under just those conditions, but make no claim that I'm
entitled to wear or use them.
snip
Exactly. I didn't say I was going to saddle up and ride off into battle.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Freddy R. Vessant
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Plymouth Rock <plymouthrock_spambegone_@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:bdicq050vkmcvkco5f16u2g1pr5o6t22te@4ax.com:
I made no claim that I had. How rude of you.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news:bdicq050vkmcvkco5f16u2g1pr5o6t22te@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2004 08:42:29 +0800, "Freddy R. Vessant"
freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up,
you could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
You have obviously never studied heraldry.
I made no claim that I had. How rude of you.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:28:30 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Freddy:
In one of your earlier comments/replies you indicated you live in the UK.
I know little directly about the restrictions on the use and/or display
of heraldic bearings there but am certain they are somewhat stuffier
about the matter than we are, here in the US. I can't imagine they'd
send in the SAS if you were to, as you say, display the historical family
arms in your library. Nevertheless, it seems to me it would be "good
form" to contact the College of Heralds in order to make certain of the
propriety if it all. They might also be able, for a fee, to nail down
what, exactly, the family arms were or if any were granted at all. That,
I think, would be worth the effort and would save much aggravation --
possibly also some anxiety.
HTH,
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
Once I hang it in the study, it is.
Freddy
Freddy:
In one of your earlier comments/replies you indicated you live in the UK.
I know little directly about the restrictions on the use and/or display
of heraldic bearings there but am certain they are somewhat stuffier
about the matter than we are, here in the US. I can't imagine they'd
send in the SAS if you were to, as you say, display the historical family
arms in your library. Nevertheless, it seems to me it would be "good
form" to contact the College of Heralds in order to make certain of the
propriety if it all. They might also be able, for a fee, to nail down
what, exactly, the family arms were or if any were granted at all. That,
I think, would be worth the effort and would save much aggravation --
possibly also some anxiety.
HTH,
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AE7E21E39F4buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
Ok Freddy,
We have very politely tried to explain to you why it is wrong. We have
tried to get you to accept that IT IS NOT yours to do with as you please. I
have even posted the web address for the College of Arms,
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ , but you still feel that you have the
right to STEAL the identity of the person to whom the Arms were originally
granted.
You are as bad as my cousin who got taken by these type people for over
$1,000 US, and cannot stand me because I pointed it out to her. I will here
by tell you the same thing I told her.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A THIEF, A LIAR and worse. You attempt to assume the
right to arms that are not yours and therefore you are committing identity
theft, even if the person whose identity you are trying assume has been dead
for 100's of years. It is even worse than taking someone's identity in
today's world, WHY? you ask, because the people of today can fight back, the
people with the right to the arms cannot.
A.W.
news:Xns95AE7E21E39F4buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ok Freddy,
We have very politely tried to explain to you why it is wrong. We have
tried to get you to accept that IT IS NOT yours to do with as you please. I
have even posted the web address for the College of Arms,
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ , but you still feel that you have the
right to STEAL the identity of the person to whom the Arms were originally
granted.
You are as bad as my cousin who got taken by these type people for over
$1,000 US, and cannot stand me because I pointed it out to her. I will here
by tell you the same thing I told her.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A THIEF, A LIAR and worse. You attempt to assume the
right to arms that are not yours and therefore you are committing identity
theft, even if the person whose identity you are trying assume has been dead
for 100's of years. It is even worse than taking someone's identity in
today's world, WHY? you ask, because the people of today can fight back, the
people with the right to the arms cannot.
A.W.
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qfuvsb3hjk58@corp.supernews.com...
Wow, A.W.! You're coming down pretty hard on someone who simply seems to
be looking for a coat of arms that may have been awarded to someone with his
surname-- preferably a documented direct ancestor. If he can find one, I
presume he would like to have the coat of arms rendered and to display the
results in his home. A family crest, so to speak. He didn't imply he would
embrace it as "his" personally, but he understandably might feel a kinship
to it if it was indeed a coat of arms that was awarded to an ancestor.
Those things weren't erased when the bearer died.
I can identify with such a goal, although I have never made the effort to do
the research. I would resent being insulted by an armorial police wannabe
with the upper case names you used against Freddy and of being accused of
"identity theft". I would look at it more as having pride and honoring the
achievements of a past family member. That is not wrong.
Now, if Freddy should happen to choose to concoct a unique coat of arms of
his own to his own liking, he surely wouldn't besmirch anyone from the past.
He could have it rendered and say whatever he wants about it, assuming the
risk that someone like yourself will never see it and raise a public hue and
cry.
Lighten up. The holidays are coming.
Bruce
news:10qfuvsb3hjk58@corp.supernews.com...
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AE7E21E39F4buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ok Freddy,
We have very politely tried to explain to you why it is wrong. We have
tried to get you to accept that IT IS NOT yours to do with as you please.
I
have even posted the web address for the College of Arms,
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ , but you still feel that you have the
right to STEAL the identity of the person to whom the Arms were originally
granted.
You are as bad as my cousin who got taken by these type people for over
$1,000 US, and cannot stand me because I pointed it out to her. I will
here
by tell you the same thing I told her.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A THIEF, A LIAR and worse. You attempt to assume the
right to arms that are not yours and therefore you are committing identity
theft, even if the person whose identity you are trying assume has been
dead
for 100's of years. It is even worse than taking someone's identity in
today's world, WHY? you ask, because the people of today can fight back,
the
people with the right to the arms cannot.
A.W.
Wow, A.W.! You're coming down pretty hard on someone who simply seems to
be looking for a coat of arms that may have been awarded to someone with his
surname-- preferably a documented direct ancestor. If he can find one, I
presume he would like to have the coat of arms rendered and to display the
results in his home. A family crest, so to speak. He didn't imply he would
embrace it as "his" personally, but he understandably might feel a kinship
to it if it was indeed a coat of arms that was awarded to an ancestor.
Those things weren't erased when the bearer died.
I can identify with such a goal, although I have never made the effort to do
the research. I would resent being insulted by an armorial police wannabe
with the upper case names you used against Freddy and of being accused of
"identity theft". I would look at it more as having pride and honoring the
achievements of a past family member. That is not wrong.
Now, if Freddy should happen to choose to concoct a unique coat of arms of
his own to his own liking, he surely wouldn't besmirch anyone from the past.
He could have it rendered and say whatever he wants about it, assuming the
risk that someone like yourself will never see it and raise a public hue and
cry.
Lighten up. The holidays are coming.
Bruce
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:07:01 GMT, Bob Melson wrote:
Well said Bob and yes, you are right about us being "stuffier". There
are right and wrong ways to do things, old fashioned and outmoded as
they may be. It's all part of our heritage and this is something that
the OP obviously cannot grasp.
In one of your earlier comments/replies you indicated you live in the UK.
I know little directly about the restrictions on the use and/or display
of heraldic bearings there but am certain they are somewhat stuffier
about the matter than we are, here in the US. I can't imagine they'd
send in the SAS if you were to, as you say, display the historical family
arms in your library. Nevertheless, it seems to me it would be "good
form" to contact the College of Heralds in order to make certain of the
propriety if it all. They might also be able, for a fee, to nail down
what, exactly, the family arms were or if any were granted at all. That,
I think, would be worth the effort and would save much aggravation --
possibly also some anxiety.
HTH,
Well said Bob and yes, you are right about us being "stuffier". There
are right and wrong ways to do things, old fashioned and outmoded as
they may be. It's all part of our heritage and this is something that
the OP obviously cannot grasp.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 27 Nov 2004 10:28:30 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
No it is not.
You're obviously totally incapable of understanding even the basics
about heraldry etc.
You're just an arrogant ignorant fool.
Once I hang it in the study, it is.
No it is not.
You're obviously totally incapable of understanding even the basics
about heraldry etc.
You're just an arrogant ignorant fool.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 27 Nov 2004 10:30:39 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the tool of a loser.
You know, you're absolutely right. I should not hang my ancestor's coat of
arms in my study because of the confusion it might cause any armoured
knights who wander in there.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the tool of a loser.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 27 Nov 2004 10:47:29 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
People with a repro of the Mona Lisa only want it because they are
snobs and are trying to be something they are not.
What an unkind thing to say. Some people have reproductions of the Mona
Lisa because it's an attractive painting.
No it wasn't. It was an accurate statement.
People with a repro of the Mona Lisa only want it because they are
snobs and are trying to be something they are not.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:50:22 +0100, Lesley Robertson wrote:
With you there 110%, and it also endorses what I've been trying
unsuccessfully to get across to the OP.
The impression I get is that the study isn't the only place he'd be
displaying someone else's Coat of Arms and saying they were his.
Someone who bought a scottish castle was told by the Court of Lyon King at
Arms to take down the arms he was using as he wasn't entitled to them - or
face fines.
Have a look here http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/fayed.html
There's others.
Personally, I don't see the attraction in claiming to own something that
doesn't belong to me. Mind you, I don't see the point of these "send us
money and we'll send you an academic degree by return post" companies
either.
Lesley Robertson
With you there 110%, and it also endorses what I've been trying
unsuccessfully to get across to the OP.
The impression I get is that the study isn't the only place he'd be
displaying someone else's Coat of Arms and saying they were his.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On 27 Nov 2004 10:46:24 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
just your study.
No, I'm not. You're using it in exactly the form I've said. Your
every utterance screams at it. And you are totally in the wrong.
You'd have people laughing at you behind your back for your arrogance
and idiocy. The numbers who care about these things are growing in
number, not declining.
At last an admission that you have no right to the coat of arms.
I sincerely hope you never do get them either.
Oh?? And exactly *how* am I supposed to be misrepresenting myself??
You made an ignorant mistake and, in the typical fashion of fools, are
trying to deflect your ignorance.
You are an ignorant fool. I am English and I know better than you
what our rights are and they are most definitely not what you can get
away with.
Foul language now. My, my you really are displaying your ignorance
now.
William the Conqueror has absolutely nothing to do with the issue that
you are refusing to accept advice and guidance on.>
I think that's exactly what you would do. I thihnk that because your
surname is relatively unusual, you are claiming all as your own.
You really are stupid. Heraldry isn't simple. It would probably be
an excellent idea if you did draw your own up, have it painted up by
some guy in pretty colours and call it yours. Then you'd have exactly
what you want and people will still laugh at you for your snobbery.
Don't you believe it.
Again you're introducing irrelevancies. Medals on display in museums
clearing show to whom they were originally awarded and from whom they
are on loan.
Nil, I hope.
Just for your information: the ancestor of mine who was awarded the
coat of arms was married to a FitzAlan heiress, their daughter married
the future (at that time) Earl of Caernarvon.
I wasn't planning to have it painted on my motor, if that's what you mean.
No, but I'm very sure that you'd be displaying it in places other than
just your study.
You are so very wrong. Done well, it is a wonderful part of the wit's
repertoire. In any case, I don't believe I am in the wrong. I do not know
how anyone who would care, who must altogether form a vanishingly small
number, would know that I had an illicit coat of arms in my private
chamber.
No, I'm not. You're using it in exactly the form I've said. Your
every utterance screams at it. And you are totally in the wrong.
You'd have people laughing at you behind your back for your arrogance
and idiocy. The numbers who care about these things are growing in
number, not declining.
At last an admission that you have no right to the coat of arms.
Well, are we not discussing my chances of getting away with it? I do not
have the coat as yet.
I sincerely hope you never do get them either.
How was I supposed to know you are misrepresenting yourself?
Oh?? And exactly *how* am I supposed to be misrepresenting myself??
You made an ignorant mistake and, in the typical fashion of fools, are
trying to deflect your ignorance.
The "right" to bear arms? I have to tell you, madam, that I'm English and
we've always believed your rights are precisely what you can get away with.
Now of course that attitude can and does lead us into trouble, so I am
trying to establish exactly what I'm up against.
You are an ignorant fool. I am English and I know better than you
what our rights are and they are most definitely not what you can get
away with.
Rules? Do you think William the Conqueror played by the rules? Did he
buggery! He fancied a realm, so he made up the rules for himself.
Foul language now. My, my you really are displaying your ignorance
now.
William the Conqueror has absolutely nothing to do with the issue that
you are refusing to accept advice and guidance on.>
Discerning? I don't just include anyone in my family tree, you know. Lord,
you'd think I was one of these poseurs who claim a distant relationship
with Queen Vic on the basis of a coincidence of names that just *might*
point to a shared cousin. Good lord no! It's all attested Vessants in my
tree.
I think that's exactly what you would do. I thihnk that because your
surname is relatively unusual, you are claiming all as your own.
Well, of course it is. I could simply draw my own. No one would know any
different. I am at least trying to find a proper Vessant coat of arms.
You really are stupid. Heraldry isn't simple. It would probably be
an excellent idea if you did draw your own up, have it painted up by
some guy in pretty colours and call it yours. Then you'd have exactly
what you want and people will still laugh at you for your snobbery.
Yes, but no one who would rat me out.
Don't you believe it.
Hmmm. So museums that show medals that were not awarded to the curators do
not meet with your approval?
Again you're introducing irrelevancies. Medals on display in museums
clearing show to whom they were originally awarded and from whom they
are on loan.
We haven't yet discovered whether there is anything to be jealous of. Yes,
my arms might be a fine stag rampant, but let's face it, what are the
chances?
Nil, I hope.
Just for your information: the ancestor of mine who was awarded the
coat of arms was married to a FitzAlan heiress, their daughter married
the future (at that time) Earl of Caernarvon.
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> schreef in bericht
news:30r16hF33rja6U1@uni-berlin.de...
That wasn't what I meant. You're both missing the important part of the
sentence
"> and telling everyone that it's the original painting"
Nothing wrong with a copy, nothing even wrong with a picture labelled "arms
granted to whoever in whatever century". It's when someone needs to lie
about what they're displaying that they become pathetic.
Lesley Rbertson
news:30r16hF33rja6U1@uni-berlin.de...
On 27 Nov 2004 10:47:29 +0800, Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
What an unkind thing to say. Some people have reproductions of the Mona
Lisa because it's an attractive painting.
No it wasn't. It was an accurate statement.
People with a repro of the Mona Lisa only want it because they are
snobs and are trying to be something they are not.
That wasn't what I meant. You're both missing the important part of the
sentence
"> and telling everyone that it's the original painting"
Nothing wrong with a copy, nothing even wrong with a picture labelled "arms
granted to whoever in whatever century". It's when someone needs to lie
about what they're displaying that they become pathetic.
Lesley Rbertson
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ATpd.1223$gH3.203@lakeread05...
Bruce,
He has in almost every post stated that the CoA are his to display. He
will not go to the College of Arms to see to whom the CoA was originally
granted or done the research to see if this person is even related to him.
He has ASSUMED they are because of the last name, and nothing else. He
probably has as much right to display or claim that CoA as I would to claim
any or all the CoA the people with the last name Johnson, Kuhlmann, or any
of the people with the same surnames that I am related to were granted,
which is NO RIGHT.
He has also made the comment that he would have a right to all the honors
granted by that CoA.
So, Bruce, before you jump on me and claim I am some moral police wannabe
get your facts straight.
Now if he wants have some made up on his own and to display them, that is
fine, as long as, it does not resemble someone else's.
A. W. Johnson
news:8ATpd.1223$gH3.203@lakeread05...
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qfuvsb3hjk58@corp.supernews.com...
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AE7E21E39F4buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ok Freddy,
We have very politely tried to explain to you why it is wrong. We have
tried to get you to accept that IT IS NOT yours to do with as you please.
I
have even posted the web address for the College of Arms,
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ , but you still feel that you have the
right to STEAL the identity of the person to whom the Arms were
originally
granted.
You are as bad as my cousin who got taken by these type people for over
$1,000 US, and cannot stand me because I pointed it out to her. I will
here
by tell you the same thing I told her.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A THIEF, A LIAR and worse. You attempt to assume the
right to arms that are not yours and therefore you are committing
identity
theft, even if the person whose identity you are trying assume has been
dead
for 100's of years. It is even worse than taking someone's identity in
today's world, WHY? you ask, because the people of today can fight back,
the
people with the right to the arms cannot.
A.W.
Wow, A.W.! You're coming down pretty hard on someone who simply seems to
be looking for a coat of arms that may have been awarded to someone with
his
surname-- preferably a documented direct ancestor. If he can find one, I
presume he would like to have the coat of arms rendered and to display the
results in his home. A family crest, so to speak. He didn't imply he
would
embrace it as "his" personally, but he understandably might feel a kinship
to it if it was indeed a coat of arms that was awarded to an ancestor.
Those things weren't erased when the bearer died.
I can identify with such a goal, although I have never made the effort to
do
the research. I would resent being insulted by an armorial police wannabe
with the upper case names you used against Freddy and of being accused of
"identity theft". I would look at it more as having pride and honoring
the
achievements of a past family member. That is not wrong.
Now, if Freddy should happen to choose to concoct a unique coat of arms of
his own to his own liking, he surely wouldn't besmirch anyone from the
past.
He could have it rendered and say whatever he wants about it, assuming the
risk that someone like yourself will never see it and raise a public hue
and
cry.
Lighten up. The holidays are coming.
Bruce
Bruce,
He has in almost every post stated that the CoA are his to display. He
will not go to the College of Arms to see to whom the CoA was originally
granted or done the research to see if this person is even related to him.
He has ASSUMED they are because of the last name, and nothing else. He
probably has as much right to display or claim that CoA as I would to claim
any or all the CoA the people with the last name Johnson, Kuhlmann, or any
of the people with the same surnames that I am related to were granted,
which is NO RIGHT.
He has also made the comment that he would have a right to all the honors
granted by that CoA.
So, Bruce, before you jump on me and claim I am some moral police wannabe
get your facts straight.
Now if he wants have some made up on his own and to display them, that is
fine, as long as, it does not resemble someone else's.
A. W. Johnson
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qgrhnqmnl0od2@corp.supernews.com...
I still contend that he has a right to do whatever he wants, as
heraldrically incorrect as it may be. In his place, I would be fascinated
to determine if an ancestor with my surname had a coat of arms. If one did,
I would copy and display it as a family accomplishment. In that respect, it
would be mine to display. If I could not verify a armoured family ancestor,
I probably would not get any satisfaction in displaying a CoA from an
unrelated person with my surname. Wouldn't make any sense to me. But I can
understand how others may not be as selective when searching for icons
related to their family identity. You and I may not agree with Freddy's
approach and methods, but he should be free to do what he wants as long as
it doesn't harm or defame anyone.
Bruce
news:10qgrhnqmnl0od2@corp.supernews.com...
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ATpd.1223$gH3.203@lakeread05...
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qfuvsb3hjk58@corp.supernews.com...
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AE7E21E39F4buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
That's very sweet of you, Liz, but I really would like one with a
link,
however tenuous, to my family's glorious past.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ok Freddy,
We have very politely tried to explain to you why it is wrong. We
have
tried to get you to accept that IT IS NOT yours to do with as you
please.
I
have even posted the web address for the College of Arms,
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ , but you still feel that you have
the
right to STEAL the identity of the person to whom the Arms were
originally
granted.
You are as bad as my cousin who got taken by these type people for
over
$1,000 US, and cannot stand me because I pointed it out to her. I will
here
by tell you the same thing I told her.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A THIEF, A LIAR and worse. You attempt to assume
the
right to arms that are not yours and therefore you are committing
identity
theft, even if the person whose identity you are trying assume has been
dead
for 100's of years. It is even worse than taking someone's identity in
today's world, WHY? you ask, because the people of today can fight
back,
the
people with the right to the arms cannot.
A.W.
Wow, A.W.! You're coming down pretty hard on someone who simply seems
to
be looking for a coat of arms that may have been awarded to someone with
his
surname-- preferably a documented direct ancestor. If he can find one,
I
presume he would like to have the coat of arms rendered and to display
the
results in his home. A family crest, so to speak. He didn't imply he
would
embrace it as "his" personally, but he understandably might feel a
kinship
to it if it was indeed a coat of arms that was awarded to an ancestor.
Those things weren't erased when the bearer died.
I can identify with such a goal, although I have never made the effort
to
do
the research. I would resent being insulted by an armorial police
wannabe
with the upper case names you used against Freddy and of being accused
of
"identity theft". I would look at it more as having pride and honoring
the
achievements of a past family member. That is not wrong.
Now, if Freddy should happen to choose to concoct a unique coat of arms
of
his own to his own liking, he surely wouldn't besmirch anyone from the
past.
He could have it rendered and say whatever he wants about it, assuming
the
risk that someone like yourself will never see it and raise a public hue
and
cry.
Lighten up. The holidays are coming.
Bruce
Bruce,
He has in almost every post stated that the CoA are his to display. He
will not go to the College of Arms to see to whom the CoA was originally
granted or done the research to see if this person is even related to him.
He has ASSUMED they are because of the last name, and nothing else. He
probably has as much right to display or claim that CoA as I would to
claim
any or all the CoA the people with the last name Johnson, Kuhlmann, or any
of the people with the same surnames that I am related to were granted,
which is NO RIGHT.
He has also made the comment that he would have a right to all the
honors
granted by that CoA.
So, Bruce, before you jump on me and claim I am some moral police
wannabe
get your facts straight.
Now if he wants have some made up on his own and to display them, that is
fine, as long as, it does not resemble someone else's.
A. W. Johnson
I still contend that he has a right to do whatever he wants, as
heraldrically incorrect as it may be. In his place, I would be fascinated
to determine if an ancestor with my surname had a coat of arms. If one did,
I would copy and display it as a family accomplishment. In that respect, it
would be mine to display. If I could not verify a armoured family ancestor,
I probably would not get any satisfaction in displaying a CoA from an
unrelated person with my surname. Wouldn't make any sense to me. But I can
understand how others may not be as selective when searching for icons
related to their family identity. You and I may not agree with Freddy's
approach and methods, but he should be free to do what he wants as long as
it doesn't harm or defame anyone.
Bruce
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
If Freddy ever does uncover an unrelated Vessant coat of arms and chooses to
display it in his home, on a shirt, in a letterhead, he is certainly within
his rights to do so. It is up to him alone as to what he says about it, if
anything, and how he claims it relates to him. He can even lie and embelish
if he wants. Nobody else's business. He digs his own hole as deep as he
wishes. He apparently accepts any risk of embarrasment, the same as he
would if he displayed a painting of the Earl of _____ and falsely claimed it
to be a direct ancestor. Again, his call, for whatever reason, but none of
our business. Now if that Earl happened to be *my* ancestor, and I saw
Freddy's painting of him in his study, it would soon become apparent from
conversation that his claim of relationship was bogus. I wouldn't be
incensed but would likely correct him and ask out of curiousity how he came
to believe he was a descendant. I wouldn't see a need to call the
constable, but then I'm not English.
As a long time REMICK researcher, I have been contacted by quite a few
Remicks who proudly claim to be cousins of the late actress, Lee Remick.
Nine out of ten are not, but most don't seem to accept the research of a
stranger and choose to go on believing because a respected family member
told them so and it makes them feel a connection to someone of celebrity.
Too bad, but really none of my business. Whatever makes them happy.
Bruce
display it in his home, on a shirt, in a letterhead, he is certainly within
his rights to do so. It is up to him alone as to what he says about it, if
anything, and how he claims it relates to him. He can even lie and embelish
if he wants. Nobody else's business. He digs his own hole as deep as he
wishes. He apparently accepts any risk of embarrasment, the same as he
would if he displayed a painting of the Earl of _____ and falsely claimed it
to be a direct ancestor. Again, his call, for whatever reason, but none of
our business. Now if that Earl happened to be *my* ancestor, and I saw
Freddy's painting of him in his study, it would soon become apparent from
conversation that his claim of relationship was bogus. I wouldn't be
incensed but would likely correct him and ask out of curiousity how he came
to believe he was a descendant. I wouldn't see a need to call the
constable, but then I'm not English.
As a long time REMICK researcher, I have been contacted by quite a few
Remicks who proudly claim to be cousins of the late actress, Lee Remick.
Nine out of ten are not, but most don't seem to accept the research of a
stranger and choose to go on believing because a respected family member
told them so and it makes them feel a connection to someone of celebrity.
Too bad, but really none of my business. Whatever makes them happy.
Bruce
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:50:44 +0000, Charani wrote:
Well, perhaps stuffy isn't the word I really wanted, tho' it _does_
capture the flavor of what I was attempting to say. Here in the US, where
we have no nobility, we're somewhat laissez faire with regard to an
individual's desire to display his historical family arms. I would
imagine, given the continued existence of royalty/nobility in the UK --
despite all the best efforts of Labour and the socialists -- that the
attitude is more than just a little different and that the use of arms is
somewhat more strictly regulated. While I can't imagine black helicopters
and armed and masked teams of SAS troopers descending on Freddy (actually,
I can imagine it and it's a real "hoot"), it does strike me as the better
part of valor to survey the landscape, so to speak, before setting off.
Ah, well. 'Nuff said, methinks. I've said my say, you've said yours, as
have others. Hope Freddy benefits from it all.
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
Well said Bob and yes, you are right about us being "stuffier". There
are right and wrong ways to do things, old fashioned and outmoded as
they may be. It's all part of our heritage and this is something that
the OP obviously cannot grasp.
Well, perhaps stuffy isn't the word I really wanted, tho' it _does_
capture the flavor of what I was attempting to say. Here in the US, where
we have no nobility, we're somewhat laissez faire with regard to an
individual's desire to display his historical family arms. I would
imagine, given the continued existence of royalty/nobility in the UK --
despite all the best efforts of Labour and the socialists -- that the
attitude is more than just a little different and that the use of arms is
somewhat more strictly regulated. While I can't imagine black helicopters
and armed and masked teams of SAS troopers descending on Freddy (actually,
I can imagine it and it's a real "hoot"), it does strike me as the better
part of valor to survey the landscape, so to speak, before setting off.
Ah, well. 'Nuff said, methinks. I've said my say, you've said yours, as
have others. Hope Freddy benefits from it all.
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Q90qd.1242$gH3.515@lakeread05...
Bruce,
You misunderstand me. IF he can prove a relationship great, display it,
however he has stated that it is his by right of his surname and CoA just
are not done that way.
IF he cannot prove a relationship for that CoA bearer then, NO, he doesn't
have a right to display it.
What ticks me off the most is, he, like my cousin, doesn't want to do the
proper research, and when he asked for advise, he decided we did not know we
were talking about. I don't know about you but I have been doing genealogy
for close to 27 years, both for myself and for others and I can't stand
sloppy work.
A. W.
news:Q90qd.1242$gH3.515@lakeread05...
I still contend that he has a right to do whatever he wants, as
heraldrically incorrect as it may be. In his place, I would be fascinated
to determine if an ancestor with my surname had a coat of arms. If one
did,
I would copy and display it as a family accomplishment. In that respect,
it
would be mine to display. If I could not verify a armoured family
ancestor,
I probably would not get any satisfaction in displaying a CoA from an
unrelated person with my surname. Wouldn't make any sense to me. But I
can
understand how others may not be as selective when searching for icons
related to their family identity. You and I may not agree with Freddy's
approach and methods, but he should be free to do what he wants as long as
it doesn't harm or defame anyone.
Bruce
Bruce,
You misunderstand me. IF he can prove a relationship great, display it,
however he has stated that it is his by right of his surname and CoA just
are not done that way.
IF he cannot prove a relationship for that CoA bearer then, NO, he doesn't
have a right to display it.
What ticks me off the most is, he, like my cousin, doesn't want to do the
proper research, and when he asked for advise, he decided we did not know we
were talking about. I don't know about you but I have been doing genealogy
for close to 27 years, both for myself and for others and I can't stand
sloppy work.
A. W.
-
Phyllis
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
I know this is supposed to be a serious conversation about heraldry, but
Freddy (if I may be so bold as to use your given name), you sure know
how to yank someone's chain. I've enjoyed this thread thoroughly (even
though I'm sure there is no Hemminger coat of arms for any of my ancestors).
Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Freddy (if I may be so bold as to use your given name), you sure know
how to yank someone's chain. I've enjoyed this thread thoroughly (even
though I'm sure there is no Hemminger coat of arms for any of my ancestors).
Freddy R. Vessant wrote:
Well, what's so hard about that? When you get the guy to paint it up,
you could add in a stripe or a golden ball?
You have obviously never studied heraldry.
I made no claim that I had. How rude of you.
Freddy
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qhnfdth6kc4b1@corp.supernews.com...
I believe we're simply looking at this from two different perspectives. I
see where you're coming from and I agree that he would be out of bounds in
adopting an unattributed Vessant coat of arms as belonging to his family, if
only because he believes his surname is so unusual that all Vessants must be
related. From my perspective though, he is still free to display this bogus
CoA and to even make up stories about it. I'm sure we'd both would agree
this would be foolish on his part and wonder why anyone would want to do
such a thing. You, being English, apparently would consider it a more
serious breech of protocol than I do here in the US.
See above.
To me, the research would be the most exciting part of a quest for an
ancestral family coat of arms and I am at a loss as to why he chooses not to
go that route, assuming this is the case. I also think most of his replies
were sort of a defensive tongue-in-cheek response to what he perceived as a
personal attack on his plans and his motives for them. I suspect he knows
that you know what you're talking about, but just doesn't feel as strongly
as you do about what's proper.
Bruce
news:10qhnfdth6kc4b1@corp.supernews.com...
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Q90qd.1242$gH3.515@lakeread05...
I still contend that he has a right to do whatever he wants, as
heraldrically incorrect as it may be. In his place, I would be
fascinated
to determine if an ancestor with my surname had a coat of arms. If one
did,
I would copy and display it as a family accomplishment. In that
respect,
it
would be mine to display. If I could not verify a armoured family
ancestor,
I probably would not get any satisfaction in displaying a CoA from an
unrelated person with my surname. Wouldn't make any sense to me. But I
can
understand how others may not be as selective when searching for icons
related to their family identity. You and I may not agree with Freddy's
approach and methods, but he should be free to do what he wants as long
as
it doesn't harm or defame anyone.
Bruce
Bruce,
You misunderstand me. IF he can prove a relationship great, display it,
however he has stated that it is his by right of his surname and CoA just
are not done that way.
I believe we're simply looking at this from two different perspectives. I
see where you're coming from and I agree that he would be out of bounds in
adopting an unattributed Vessant coat of arms as belonging to his family, if
only because he believes his surname is so unusual that all Vessants must be
related. From my perspective though, he is still free to display this bogus
CoA and to even make up stories about it. I'm sure we'd both would agree
this would be foolish on his part and wonder why anyone would want to do
such a thing. You, being English, apparently would consider it a more
serious breech of protocol than I do here in the US.
IF he cannot prove a relationship for that CoA bearer then, NO, he
doesn't
have a right to display it.
See above.
What ticks me off the most is, he, like my cousin, doesn't want to do
the
proper research, and when he asked for advise, he decided we did not know
we
were talking about. I don't know about you but I have been doing
genealogy
for close to 27 years, both for myself and for others and I can't stand
sloppy work.
To me, the research would be the most exciting part of a quest for an
ancestral family coat of arms and I am at a loss as to why he chooses not to
go that route, assuming this is the case. I also think most of his replies
were sort of a defensive tongue-in-cheek response to what he perceived as a
personal attack on his plans and his motives for them. I suspect he knows
that you know what you're talking about, but just doesn't feel as strongly
as you do about what's proper.
Bruce
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2004.11.27.18.20.54.200101@earthlink.net...
I think that this is at the root of the whole misunderstanding. The fact is
that there is no such thing as "family arms" - they are granted to
individuals and are items of personal property, not something that belongs
to everyone with a distant link. The closest thing to "family arms" are the
clan badges - not to be confused the arms of Clan Chiefs.
I'm willing to bet that the taking and using of other people's property
without their permission is not regarded tolerantly in the US, any more than
any where else? Most of the Americans I know are extremely honest people.
Lesley Robertson
news:pan.2004.11.27.18.20.54.200101@earthlink.net...
Here in the US, where
we have no nobility, we're somewhat laissez faire with regard to an
individual's desire to display his historical family arms.
I think that this is at the root of the whole misunderstanding. The fact is
that there is no such thing as "family arms" - they are granted to
individuals and are items of personal property, not something that belongs
to everyone with a distant link. The closest thing to "family arms" are the
clan badges - not to be confused the arms of Clan Chiefs.
I'm willing to bet that the taking and using of other people's property
without their permission is not regarded tolerantly in the US, any more than
any where else? Most of the Americans I know are extremely honest people.
Lesley Robertson
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:26:03 +0100, Lesley Robertson wrote:
I wasn't actually
) I was adding my own rider as well, which I
obviously didn't make quite as clear as I should have.
Agreed
That wasn't what I meant. You're both missing the important part of the
sentence
I wasn't actually
obviously didn't make quite as clear as I should have.
Nothing wrong with a copy, nothing even wrong with a picture labelled "arms
granted to whoever in whatever century". It's when someone needs to lie
about what they're displaying that they become pathetic.
Agreed
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
No it isn't actually. *That* is the point that we've been trying to
get across to the OP. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to
display the coat of arms on any shirt or letterhead. To do so is to
invite trouble. He's already said he's been sued once before and he
obviously hasn't learned from that.
Bob Melson has got it right. He can see that Americans have a very
different approach to these things.
Unfortunately that will always be the case. I mean, what the heck
does a stranger know?? They aren't family so they can't know
anything.
)
Personally I find it rather sad that people feel they have to claim a
celebrity or a long dead knight in order to give themselves some sort
of validity. They don't seem able to grasp the fact that they are
their own celebrity and their own "nobility".
Was Lee Remick her real name or a stage name?? That's something a lot
of people don't cotton on to. A friend of mine thought that they were
related to Elton John because the name Elton appeared in her family -
well, she did until I told her that his real name was Reginald Dwight.
If Freddy ever does uncover an unrelated Vessant coat of arms and chooses to
display it in his home, on a shirt, in a letterhead, he is certainly within
his rights to do so.
No it isn't actually. *That* is the point that we've been trying to
get across to the OP. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to
display the coat of arms on any shirt or letterhead. To do so is to
invite trouble. He's already said he's been sued once before and he
obviously hasn't learned from that.
Bob Melson has got it right. He can see that Americans have a very
different approach to these things.
As a long time REMICK researcher, I have been contacted by quite a few
Remicks who proudly claim to be cousins of the late actress, Lee Remick.
Nine out of ten are not, but most don't seem to accept the research of a
stranger and choose to go on believing because a respected family member
told them so and it makes them feel a connection to someone of celebrity.
Too bad, but really none of my business. Whatever makes them happy.
Unfortunately that will always be the case. I mean, what the heck
does a stranger know?? They aren't family so they can't know
anything.
Personally I find it rather sad that people feel they have to claim a
celebrity or a long dead knight in order to give themselves some sort
of validity. They don't seem able to grasp the fact that they are
their own celebrity and their own "nobility".
Was Lee Remick her real name or a stage name?? That's something a lot
of people don't cotton on to. A friend of mine thought that they were
related to Elton John because the name Elton appeared in her family -
well, she did until I told her that his real name was Reginald Dwight.
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:dFgqd.12$rC.2@fe39.usenetserver.com...
What then should happen to his coat of arms after the individual passes on?
If the CoA is not something that can be embraced by (versus "belong to") his
descendants, why even bother keeping records of them? Are you saying that a
direct descendant could not proudly display a rendering of his ancestor's
coat of arms as a reflection of the accomplishment of that ancestor? Even
by saying that this is the coat of arms associated with our family, it would
simply mean that the arms was bestowed upon an early member of that
particular family line. There would be no claim of ownership, per se.
How could one obtain permission of an individual who may have lived several
centuries ago? And if his descendants have no legal claim to his coat of
arms, they are in no position to give permission either. I could display a
copy of my ancestor's original 18th century charter membership in the
Society of the Cincinnati. His property. I do not qualify for membership.
I obviously do not have his permission. I would not consider myself
"taking and using" his property in a malicious or incorrect way and I would
not claim that *I* was a member.
I really don't mean to be argumentative. I just find the contrast in
attitudes and perceptions regarding the treatment of coats of arms between
in the UK and US to be very informative. I don't fully understand it all,
so your point of misunderstanding would certainly apply to me. Essentially,
most of us in the US seem to regard coats of arms as genealogical novelties.
We often accept without question a rendering of a coat of arms with SMITH
underneath as something that represents all SMITH's, even if that CoA was a
fantasy concocted by one of those heraldry-hawker companies which continue
to perpetuate this attitude among those of us with no concept of nobility.
So although we may not ever agree totally on this, at least I, for one, have
learned from this thread.
Bruce
news:dFgqd.12$rC.2@fe39.usenetserver.com...
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2004.11.27.18.20.54.200101@earthlink.net...
Here in the US, where
we have no nobility, we're somewhat laissez faire with regard to an
individual's desire to display his historical family arms.
I think that this is at the root of the whole misunderstanding. The fact
is
that there is no such thing as "family arms" - they are granted to
individuals and are items of personal property, not something that belongs
to everyone with a distant link. The closest thing to "family arms" are
the
clan badges - not to be confused the arms of Clan Chiefs.
What then should happen to his coat of arms after the individual passes on?
If the CoA is not something that can be embraced by (versus "belong to") his
descendants, why even bother keeping records of them? Are you saying that a
direct descendant could not proudly display a rendering of his ancestor's
coat of arms as a reflection of the accomplishment of that ancestor? Even
by saying that this is the coat of arms associated with our family, it would
simply mean that the arms was bestowed upon an early member of that
particular family line. There would be no claim of ownership, per se.
I'm willing to bet that the taking and using of other people's property
without their permission is not regarded tolerantly in the US, any more
than
any where else? Most of the Americans I know are extremely honest people.
Lesley Robertson
How could one obtain permission of an individual who may have lived several
centuries ago? And if his descendants have no legal claim to his coat of
arms, they are in no position to give permission either. I could display a
copy of my ancestor's original 18th century charter membership in the
Society of the Cincinnati. His property. I do not qualify for membership.
I obviously do not have his permission. I would not consider myself
"taking and using" his property in a malicious or incorrect way and I would
not claim that *I* was a member.
I really don't mean to be argumentative. I just find the contrast in
attitudes and perceptions regarding the treatment of coats of arms between
in the UK and US to be very informative. I don't fully understand it all,
so your point of misunderstanding would certainly apply to me. Essentially,
most of us in the US seem to regard coats of arms as genealogical novelties.
We often accept without question a rendering of a coat of arms with SMITH
underneath as something that represents all SMITH's, even if that CoA was a
fantasy concocted by one of those heraldry-hawker companies which continue
to perpetuate this attitude among those of us with no concept of nobility.
So although we may not ever agree totally on this, at least I, for one, have
learned from this thread.
Bruce
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30tssoF32numvU1@uni-berlin.de...
If no one except the one originally bestowed with the CoA can "own" it, who
would have the legal right to sue someone (and win) for "using" it hundreds
of years later? I don't mean this sarcastically. I am honestly curious.
That was her true name. While my own Remick line originated in the US in
the 1600's, her folks came here from Ireland during the mid-1800's Famine
years and settled in Massachusetts. I have her family pretty well
documented in the US but have never been able to establish an Irish
connection.
Bruce
news:30tssoF32numvU1@uni-berlin.de...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
If Freddy ever does uncover an unrelated Vessant coat of arms and
chooses to
display it in his home, on a shirt, in a letterhead, he is certainly
within
his rights to do so.
No it isn't actually. *That* is the point that we've been trying to
get across to the OP. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to
display the coat of arms on any shirt or letterhead. To do so is to
invite trouble. He's already said he's been sued once before and he
obviously hasn't learned from that.
If no one except the one originally bestowed with the CoA can "own" it, who
would have the legal right to sue someone (and win) for "using" it hundreds
of years later? I don't mean this sarcastically. I am honestly curious.
Bob Melson has got it right. He can see that Americans have a very
different approach to these things.
As a long time REMICK researcher, I have been contacted by quite a few
Remicks who proudly claim to be cousins of the late actress, Lee Remick.
Nine out of ten are not, but most don't seem to accept the research of a
stranger and choose to go on believing because a respected family member
told them so and it makes them feel a connection to someone of
celebrity.
Too bad, but really none of my business. Whatever makes them happy.
Unfortunately that will always be the case. I mean, what the heck
does a stranger know?? They aren't family so they can't know
anything.)
Personally I find it rather sad that people feel they have to claim a
celebrity or a long dead knight in order to give themselves some sort
of validity. They don't seem able to grasp the fact that they are
their own celebrity and their own "nobility".
Was Lee Remick her real name or a stage name?? That's something a lot
of people don't cotton on to. A friend of mine thought that they were
related to Elton John because the name Elton appeared in her family -
well, she did until I told her that his real name was Reginald Dwight.
That was her true name. While my own Remick line originated in the US in
the 1600's, her folks came here from Ireland during the mid-1800's Famine
years and settled in Massachusetts. I have her family pretty well
documented in the US but have never been able to establish an Irish
connection.
Bruce
-
awnospamj@ev1.net
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OU9qd.1309$gH3.1222@lakeread05...
Actually, I am American, and still believe that if you are going to display
something, and claim it as yours, you had better be able to prove that you
have a right to it. IF he can prove that he is a direct descendent of that
person I have no problem with his displaying the CoA, as long as he shows to
whom it was granted, when it was granted and why it was granted and does not
claim it as his CoA.
A. W.
Austin, Texas
news:OU9qd.1309$gH3.1222@lakeread05...
What ticks me off the most is, he, like my cousin, doesn't want to do
the
proper research, and when he asked for advise, he decided we did not know
we
were talking about. I don't know about you but I have been doing
genealogy
for close to 27 years, both for myself and for others and I can't stand
sloppy work.
To me, the research would be the most exciting part of a quest for an
ancestral family coat of arms and I am at a loss as to why he chooses not
to
go that route, assuming this is the case. I also think most of his
replies
were sort of a defensive tongue-in-cheek response to what he perceived as
a
personal attack on his plans and his motives for them. I suspect he knows
that you know what you're talking about, but just doesn't feel as strongly
as you do about what's proper.
Bruce
Actually, I am American, and still believe that if you are going to display
something, and claim it as yours, you had better be able to prove that you
have a right to it. IF he can prove that he is a direct descendent of that
person I have no problem with his displaying the CoA, as long as he shows to
whom it was granted, when it was granted and why it was granted and does not
claim it as his CoA.
A. W.
Austin, Texas
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"awnospamj@ev1.net" <figment@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qjvoordk1qba@corp.supernews.com...
I would agree with that. If it were me, I would be especially proud to
point out exactly to whom the Arms was granted and my relationship to that
person. Otherwise, it's sort of like claiming Charlemagne as an ancestor
simply based on the oft-repeated notion that "most people could probably
trace their ancestry to Charlemagne".
I have renderings of six different coats of arms purportedly granted to
"Remick", but have never found an official record of an actual Remick having
been granted a coat of arms. None of the six designs has common elements,
so who knows how or where they originated. I always assumed that none of
them was legitimate, but keep copies of them in my files anyway as
curiosities.
Bruce
news:10qjvoordk1qba@corp.supernews.com...
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OU9qd.1309$gH3.1222@lakeread05...
What ticks me off the most is, he, like my cousin, doesn't want to do
the
proper research, and when he asked for advise, he decided we did not
know
we
were talking about. I don't know about you but I have been doing
genealogy
for close to 27 years, both for myself and for others and I can't stand
sloppy work.
To me, the research would be the most exciting part of a quest for an
ancestral family coat of arms and I am at a loss as to why he chooses
not
to
go that route, assuming this is the case. I also think most of his
replies
were sort of a defensive tongue-in-cheek response to what he perceived
as
a
personal attack on his plans and his motives for them. I suspect he
knows
that you know what you're talking about, but just doesn't feel as
strongly
as you do about what's proper.
Bruce
Actually, I am American, and still believe that if you are going to
display
something, and claim it as yours, you had better be able to prove that you
have a right to it. IF he can prove that he is a direct descendent of that
person I have no problem with his displaying the CoA, as long as he shows
to
whom it was granted, when it was granted and why it was granted and does
not
claim it as his CoA.
A. W.
Austin, Texas
I would agree with that. If it were me, I would be especially proud to
point out exactly to whom the Arms was granted and my relationship to that
person. Otherwise, it's sort of like claiming Charlemagne as an ancestor
simply based on the oft-repeated notion that "most people could probably
trace their ancestry to Charlemagne".
I have renderings of six different coats of arms purportedly granted to
"Remick", but have never found an official record of an actual Remick having
been granted a coat of arms. None of the six designs has common elements,
so who knows how or where they originated. I always assumed that none of
them was legitimate, but keep copies of them in my files anyway as
curiosities.
Bruce
-
singhals
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
Bruce Remick wrote:
The legal right to use the arms descended (in England at least) to the
eldest male heir, whether last week, last century, or last millenium.
Where there is no male heir to inherit, the arms go defunct, but I'd
think the College of Arms (in England) would retain the right to forbid
anyone else in England from using them?
Cheryl
"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30tssoF32numvU1@uni-berlin.de...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
If Freddy ever does uncover an unrelated Vessant coat of arms and
chooses to
display it in his home, on a shirt, in a letterhead, he is certainly
within
his rights to do so.
No it isn't actually. *That* is the point that we've been trying to
get across to the OP. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to
display the coat of arms on any shirt or letterhead. To do so is to
invite trouble. He's already said he's been sued once before and he
obviously hasn't learned from that.
If no one except the one originally bestowed with the CoA can "own" it, who
would have the legal right to sue someone (and win) for "using" it hundreds
of years later? I don't mean this sarcastically. I am honestly curious.
The legal right to use the arms descended (in England at least) to the
eldest male heir, whether last week, last century, or last millenium.
Where there is no male heir to inherit, the arms go defunct, but I'd
think the College of Arms (in England) would retain the right to forbid
anyone else in England from using them?
Cheryl
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> schreef in bericht
news:Ymmqd.2864$gH3.459@lakeread05...
Like the rest of his property, it goes to his heir.
If the display says, for example, that these are the arms of Kermit
MacMuppet of Bass, that's fine. If the display says "these are the arms of
the MacMuppet family and as I'm a MacMuppet I have the right to use them",
then that's "using without permission".
But you're showing it as his charter membership, you're not pretending that
the fact that he had charter membership qualifies you for the same. It's
all in the mode of presentation.
They're honours, either associated with a specific title (eg Queen Elisabeth
uses the Royal arms) or awarded for a specific reason (these days, often for
special service). An equivalent might be someone putting PhD after their own
name because a distant relative has a PhD.
That's why we keep arguing - we don't like to see the snake oil salesmen
getting away with it.
Lesley Robertson
news:Ymmqd.2864$gH3.459@lakeread05...
What then should happen to his coat of arms after the individual passes
on?
Like the rest of his property, it goes to his heir.
If the CoA is not something that can be embraced by (versus "belong to")
his
descendants, why even bother keeping records of them? Are you saying that
a
direct descendant could not proudly display a rendering of his ancestor's
coat of arms as a reflection of the accomplishment of that ancestor?
Even
by saying that this is the coat of arms associated with our family, it
would
simply mean that the arms was bestowed upon an early member of that
particular family line. There would be no claim of ownership, per se.
If the display says, for example, that these are the arms of Kermit
MacMuppet of Bass, that's fine. If the display says "these are the arms of
the MacMuppet family and as I'm a MacMuppet I have the right to use them",
then that's "using without permission".
How could one obtain permission of an individual who may have lived
several
centuries ago? And if his descendants have no legal claim to his coat of
arms, they are in no position to give permission either. I could display
a
copy of my ancestor's original 18th century charter membership in the
Society of the Cincinnati. His property. I do not qualify for
membership.
I obviously do not have his permission. I would not consider myself
"taking and using" his property in a malicious or incorrect way and I
would
not claim that *I* was a member.
But you're showing it as his charter membership, you're not pretending that
the fact that he had charter membership qualifies you for the same. It's
all in the mode of presentation.
I really don't mean to be argumentative. I just find the contrast in
attitudes and perceptions regarding the treatment of coats of arms between
in the UK and US to be very informative. I don't fully understand it all,
so your point of misunderstanding would certainly apply to me.
Essentially,
most of us in the US seem to regard coats of arms as genealogical
novelties.
They're honours, either associated with a specific title (eg Queen Elisabeth
uses the Royal arms) or awarded for a specific reason (these days, often for
special service). An equivalent might be someone putting PhD after their own
name because a distant relative has a PhD.
We often accept without question a rendering of a coat of arms with SMITH
underneath as something that represents all SMITH's, even if that CoA was
a
fantasy concocted by one of those heraldry-hawker companies which continue
to perpetuate this attitude among those of us with no concept of nobility.
So although we may not ever agree totally on this, at least I, for one,
have
learned from this thread.
That's why we keep arguing - we don't like to see the snake oil salesmen
getting away with it.
Lesley Robertson
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> schreef in bericht
news:cxnqd.2883$gH3.112@lakeread05...
several in stock). A lot, of course, depends on the country in which they
were granted - all the discussion thus far has centred around the UK), but
they could all be authentic if granted separately to different people for
different reasons. In the unlikely event that I ever qualified for the
honour, I wouldn't bother to see what previous Robertsons had used, I'd go
for something I liked.
Lesley Robertson
news:cxnqd.2883$gH3.112@lakeread05...
I have renderings of six different coats of arms purportedly granted to
"Remick", but have never found an official record of an actual Remick
having
been granted a coat of arms. None of the six designs has common elements,
so who knows how or where they originated. I always assumed that none of
them was legitimate, but keep copies of them in my files anyway as
curiosities.
There are extensive books showing grants of arms (Archive CD Books have
several in stock). A lot, of course, depends on the country in which they
were granted - all the discussion thus far has centred around the UK), but
they could all be authentic if granted separately to different people for
different reasons. In the unlikely event that I ever qualified for the
honour, I wouldn't bother to see what previous Robertsons had used, I'd go
for something I liked.
Lesley Robertson
-
Bob Melson
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:13:43 +0100, Lesley Robertson wrote:
Lesley:
I see I erred in my use of the term "family arms". I agree -- how could I
not? - that the grant of arms was to an individual for some deed or
service to the sovreign, frequently in conjunction with a patent of
nobility. These heraldic bearings often _were_ family arms, in that they
descended unchanged from the armiger to his eldest son and with some
differentiation to his other children. This was more often the case with
what I'll call the titled gentry -- the counts, baronets, earls, etc --
but not with the simple knights The case of my Gresham line is a good
case in point: the original patent of nobility and grant of arms were as
a result of service to William at the time of the Conquest; both the title
and the arms passed through direct male descent through several
generations and ended only with the demise of the direct line in the UK
about 1800, although there were collateral branches in the US.
My whole point, so far as Freddy's question is concerned, is (1) that the
situation in the UK is different from that here in the US with regard to
the display of arms -- somewhat more restricted in terms of law and
custom, (2) he should have no problem with a private display in any event
if he can establish a connection with the historical Vessant to whom the
arms were granted.
Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
"Bob Melson" <melsonr@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2004.11.27.18.20.54.200101@earthlink.net...
Here in the US, where
we have no nobility, we're somewhat laissez faire with regard to an
individual's desire to display his historical family arms.
I think that this is at the root of the whole misunderstanding. The fact is
that there is no such thing as "family arms" - they are granted to
individuals and are items of personal property, not something that belongs
to everyone with a distant link. The closest thing to "family arms" are the
clan badges - not to be confused the arms of Clan Chiefs.
I'm willing to bet that the taking and using of other people's property
without their permission is not regarded tolerantly in the US, any more than
any where else? Most of the Americans I know are extremely honest people.
Lesley:
I see I erred in my use of the term "family arms". I agree -- how could I
not? - that the grant of arms was to an individual for some deed or
service to the sovreign, frequently in conjunction with a patent of
nobility. These heraldic bearings often _were_ family arms, in that they
descended unchanged from the armiger to his eldest son and with some
differentiation to his other children. This was more often the case with
what I'll call the titled gentry -- the counts, baronets, earls, etc --
but not with the simple knights The case of my Gresham line is a good
case in point: the original patent of nobility and grant of arms were as
a result of service to William at the time of the Conquest; both the title
and the arms passed through direct male descent through several
generations and ended only with the demise of the direct line in the UK
about 1800, although there were collateral branches in the US.
My whole point, so far as Freddy's question is concerned, is (1) that the
situation in the UK is different from that here in the US with regard to
the display of arms -- somewhat more restricted in terms of law and
custom, (2) he should have no problem with a private display in any event
if he can establish a connection with the historical Vessant to whom the
arms were granted.
Bob
Lesley Robertson
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:52:15 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
The College of Arms is the overseer of it all. They are the ones who
have the power and authority to deal with miscreants. As Lesley has
already pointed out Court of Lyon King at Arms has already warned
someone to stop using someone else's coat of arms or be fined. That
was in Scotland. I must admit that I get a little confused about the
hierachy of the College so have a look at the College's site
But you are awake to the fact that there are two lines.
If no one except the one originally bestowed with the CoA can "own" it, who
would have the legal right to sue someone (and win) for "using" it hundreds
of years later? I don't mean this sarcastically. I am honestly curious.
The College of Arms is the overseer of it all. They are the ones who
have the power and authority to deal with miscreants. As Lesley has
already pointed out Court of Lyon King at Arms has already warned
someone to stop using someone else's coat of arms or be fined. That
was in Scotland. I must admit that I get a little confused about the
hierachy of the College so have a look at the College's site
That was her true name. While my own Remick line originated in the US in
the 1600's, her folks came here from Ireland during the mid-1800's Famine
years and settled in Massachusetts. I have her family pretty well
documented in the US but have never been able to establish an Irish
connection.
But you are awake to the fact that there are two lines.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:37:55 -0500, singhals wrote:
They're the governing body.
The legal right to use the arms descended (in England at least) to the
eldest male heir, whether last week, last century, or last millenium.
Where there is no male heir to inherit, the arms go defunct, but I'd
think the College of Arms (in England) would retain the right to forbid
anyone else in England from using them?
You think right)
They're the governing body.
-
Charani
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:38:45 -0600, awnospamj@ev1.net wrote:
I'd seen that you were an American and I have to admit that it made me
chuckle
)
If only everyone was as aware of the rules as you are. I applaud you
)
Actually, I am American, and still believe that if you are going to display
something, and claim it as yours, you had better be able to prove that you
have a right to it. IF he can prove that he is a direct descendent of that
person I have no problem with his displaying the CoA, as long as he shows to
whom it was granted, when it was granted and why it was granted and does not
claim it as his CoA.
I'd seen that you were an American and I have to admit that it made me
chuckle
If only everyone was as aware of the rules as you are. I applaud you
-
Stephen Hayes
Vessant coat of arms?
FamilyNet Newsgate
Charani wrote in a message to All:
C> From: Charani <me@privacy.net>
C> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:52:15 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
C> The College of Arms is the overseer of it all. They are the ones
C> who have the power and authority to deal with miscreants. As Lesley
C> has already pointed out Court of Lyon King at Arms has already
C> warned someone to stop using someone else's coat of arms or be
C> fined. That was in Scotland. I must admit that I get a little
C> confused about the hierachy of the College so have a look at the
C> College's site
The College of Arms is the overseer of it in England, and the Loyn King of Arms
in Scotland.
In this country it is the Bureau of Heraldry.
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
Charani wrote in a message to All:
C> From: Charani <me@privacy.net>
C> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:52:15 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote:
If no one except the one originally bestowed with the CoA can "own" it, who
would have the legal right to sue someone (and win) for "using" it hundreds
of years later? I don't mean this sarcastically. I am honestly curious.
C> The College of Arms is the overseer of it all. They are the ones
C> who have the power and authority to deal with miscreants. As Lesley
C> has already pointed out Court of Lyon King at Arms has already
C> warned someone to stop using someone else's coat of arms or be
C> fined. That was in Scotland. I must admit that I get a little
C> confused about the hierachy of the College so have a look at the
C> College's site
The College of Arms is the overseer of it in England, and the Loyn King of Arms
in Scotland.
In this country it is the Bureau of Heraldry.
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
-
Mick Gurling
Re: Vessant coat of arms?
"Freddy R. Vessant" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABABCF5B485buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
<snip>
Having read this tread which of course is a repeat of an oft repeated theme
I would add that I do have on my wall a small etched copper plaque showing a
coat of armes identified in the etched text as being 'once used by a person
bearing the name Gurling' when peole do ask about it they are usually
subjected to a lecture on the very toic of this thread. i.e. how arms were
awarded and who had or inherited the right to use them. This always includes
the statement that I have no idea who originally used *these* arms and
therefore I don't know If I am related to them in any way.
This I see as a corrct use of such nicknacks. BTW I did confirm they are
listed in Burks Peerage.
Mickg
news:Xns95ABABCF5B485buddhaless@218.191.67.181...
<snip>
Having read this tread which of course is a repeat of an oft repeated theme
I would add that I do have on my wall a small etched copper plaque showing a
coat of armes identified in the etched text as being 'once used by a person
bearing the name Gurling' when peole do ask about it they are usually
subjected to a lecture on the very toic of this thread. i.e. how arms were
awarded and who had or inherited the right to use them. This always includes
the statement that I have no idea who originally used *these* arms and
therefore I don't know If I am related to them in any way.
This I see as a corrct use of such nicknacks. BTW I did confirm they are
listed in Burks Peerage.
Mickg