AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

Heraldry Gazette - December 2007

After the Birmingham International Heraldry Conference this year, the following letters were exchanged between Mr Ralph Brocklebank and Garter Principal King of Arms, Mr Peter Gwynn-Jones. Both correspondents were keen to share their thoughts with readers of the Heraldry Gazette and the editor hopes that they will inspire some lively and interesting debate through this publication’s correspondence columns.

From Ralph Brocklebank to Garter King of Arms:

The Birmingham International Heraldry Conference held earlier this month was rated a great success by those who attended, and finished with a debate on the Future of Heraldry. I thought you might be interested to hear some of the concerns and points that were discussed.

It was generally felt that if heraldry is to have a prosperous and flourishing future, it needs to take greater account of changes in society, such as the increasing emancipation of women and the disappearance of class barriers. There is a large number of worthy people who have a nascent interest in heraldry as something belonging to our English heritage, but are given to believe that it is only for the rich and famous, or else of purely historic value. They need to be encouraged to think that heraldry is something that they can embrace personally, to have a family asset that can be passed down to their children and successive descendants.

One of the deterrents to getting involved was seen to be the high cost of a Grant of Arms. It was asked whether it would not be possible to institute a form of Certificate of Arms that would confirm the legality of a Grant without incurring the expense of a luxurious Letters Patent, to be offered as an alternative. No doubt many discerning people would prefer the high-class quality of a traditional Grant of Arms, but to have a more affordable equivalent would open the field to a lot of worthy people, neither pop stars nor life peers, who have a great love for heraldry but cannot at present justify the expense. Another concern was expressed about the use of cadency marks. Although many Grants contain a phrase such as "and to his descendants duly differenced according to the Law of Arms," it appears that this form of differencing is widely ignored, even by Officers of Arms, one of whom was quoted as saying that "We don't pay much attention to cadency marks these days." If this is true, it does the College no good.

Perhaps it is time the Law of Arms was revised, but at any rate the matter needs clarification. Several of those present, keen and knowledgeable armorists, reported that designs they had submitted, although fully in accord with good heraldry, being both simple and distinctive, had been rejected or greatly altered on grounds that seemed somewhat arbitrary, such as "We no longer allow open books” I hope you will find these comments helpful, and assure you that I greatly admire the work that you and your colleagues do, wishing only that it were available to a wider public.

Garter’s response:

Many thanks for your letter of 24th August. I am delighted to learn that the Birmingham International Heraldry Conference was a success. I was also particularly interested to hear the conclusions of the final debate. I am therefore taking the opportunity to reply to these conclusions. During my forty years at the College of Arms there have been noticeable changes in the nature of heraldry. On the one hand there has been a considerable drop off in the number of overseas grantees. At the same time corporate heraldry has declined in favour of logos. On the other hand the number of personal grantees from England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been on the increase. This has included a very considerable number of female grantees who were almost non-existent forty years ago. Heraldry is still very much alive. It is always difficult to predict the future; but I do not envisage its immediate demise.

You refer to the deterrent of the high cost of a grant of Arms and whether some form of certificate might be issued. I do not see that this is a solution. The cost of production is not a major problem. The main bulk of grant fees goes into the Marshalcy Crown Monies Account which is used for running the College of Arms, paying for the College Staff and other running costs. Some years ago an attempt was made to avoid increasing the cost of a grant of Arms. This drove the College into serious financial difficulties which have only been resolved by reversing the policy. Some slight saving might be obtained by revising the official recording of each grant in the College books of registration. Each such grant could be precised so that the name of the grantee, the blazon and date is only recorded without such as the repetition of the Earl Marshal's name. However, this would only resolve in a small reduction in the cost of production and has already been rejected by Chapter.

With regard to the use of cadency marks. I have to confess that I may be one of your "culprits". I have never favoured the system of cadency unless there is a need to mark out distinct branches of a particular family. To use cadency marks for each and every generation is something of a nonsense as it results in a pile of indecipherable marks set one above the other. I therefore adhere firmly to the view that they should be used sparingly.

I am not aware of any restriction on ships in Crests nor is there any ban on barry Azure and Argent to represent water. The one device which you mention as having a restriction placed upon it is the open book. The restriction was imposed by Sir Anthony Wagner some forty years ago. It is now considered that the open book should be confined to places of education and distinguished authors. I do not propose to encourage any lifting of this restriction which I consider to be sound.

I would be perfectly happy for you to circulate or publish this letter should you think it appropriate. It may also clear up some misunderstandings!

To a further enquiry as to the use of cadency marks, Garter wrote as follows:-

Unfortunately, compulsion is not the way ahead for twenty-first century heraldry. However, official recognition and certification of any Armorial Bearings can only be effected when the person in whose favour the Arms are being recognized or certified appears in the appropriate book of record at the College of Arms. I believe it right in England and Wales for a branch to use cadency marks sparingly and only if they wish to do so. I see no need to alter the wording on Letters Patent as there have been no fundamental changes.

(So it seems that continental-style “family arms” are tolerated and here to stay!) RB