Berend Johann I von Bock - Two distinct von Bock families in Livonia as distinguished by their different coats of arms

For which branch is this coat of arms for?

https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Bock_fr%C3%A5n_Lahmes_nr_1174

Berend Johann I von Bock is my second cousin 7 times removed.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
You Ingrida Cinkmane (Dzelvite)
→ Elza Dzelvite (Grahpe,Grāpe)
your mother →
Jānis Grāpe(Grahpe)
her father →
Baron Arnold Julius von Vietinghoff-Riesch
his father →
Carl Arnold Bar. von Vietinghoff
his father →
Reinhold Johann Peter von Vietinghoff
his father →
Augusta Christiane Isabella Elisabet von Vietinghoff
his mother →
Reinhold Gustaf von Ungern-Sternberg
her father →
Reinhold VII (Renaud) von Ungern-Sternberg
his father →
Helene Zoege von Manteuffel
his mother →
Anna Margaretha Zoege von Manteuffel
her sister →
Anna Helene von Bock
her daughter →
Berend Johann I von Bock
her son

Private User
> For which branch is this coat of arms for?
This is unclear - it should be the same family of the house Lahmes/Lachmes that Jens von Brasch mentioned - the date of introduction into the Swedish nobility appears to be identical.
In Livonia and Estonia the family was entered about 60 years later with this coat of arms: https://www.ra.ee/apps/vapid/index.php?act=vapp&id=104

The Livonian and Estonian families are descendants of the brothers of Wilhelm Bock från Lahmes (who died without children). It is possible that he received the coat of arms listed on Adelsvapen when he was introduced to the Swedish nobility, but the rest of the family kept their own coat of arms. Alternatively, the coat of arms on Adelsvapen could be an error.

The relevant areas of the family tree are in the Estonian archives and can be found here https://www.ra.ee/dgs/_purl.php?shc=EAA.1674.2.34:4 and here https://www.ra.ee/dgs/_purl.php?shc=EAA.1674.2.34:6

Regards,

Eike Anderson

That looks right. My Swedish is far from fluent, but reading the description on the Adelsvapen version makes it clear, those arms are for the Swedish branch.

"En gren är intagen på livländska riddarhuset under nr 56 och på estiänaska under nr 80 med ursprungliga vapnet, en röd hjort i silverfält."

The Estonian nr 80 arms are the original:

https://www.ra.ee/apps/vapid/index.php?act=vapp&id=104

Haven't found any other source for the Livonian branch nr 56 except this one:

https://second.wiki/wiki/bock_adh_lachmes

Bock und Polach

https://second.wiki/wiki/bock_und_polach

That page mentions that "This coat of arms is - in small variations - until today the coat of arms of the families von Bock and Polach, von Bock from the house of Lachmes and Freiherrn von Bock."

No mention of any bunch of grapes. Though, it also omits any reference to the Swedish branch of Bock från Lahmes as well.

Hi Eike,
Thanks for your prompt response and for the references in the Estonian Archives.
They do confirm that all the von Bocks in this this von Brasch family tree are from the House of Lachmes. This is also borne out by both your archival references and by the pared-back coat of arms of the von Bock-Lachmes you also provided.
My own references are (1) "Adelslexikon Band I" in the series "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels", C A Starke Verlag, Limburg/Lahn, 1972 in which the von Bock from the House of Lachmes family is briefly outlined on pp. 450-451. The first of their line was one Wilhelm Bock who appeared in Livonia in 1581 and 1599 as a feudal tenant. The next of their line to come to attention was another Wilhelm Bock who was a colonel in the Swedish army and who received recognition in Sweden as noble on 13.3.1689 and was granted a somewhat different coat of arms which the family chose not to use and was admitted into the Swedish Knighthood in 1689 under the No. 1174. The whole von Bock family of the House of Lachmes was admitted to the Livonian Knighthood in 1742 and Heinrich August von Bock, owner of the manor Kersel in Livonia, was later also admitted to the Estonian Knighthood in 1818.
The Lachmes von Bocks were notable because they produced a number of Landräte within the Livonian Knighthood, and were doing so throughout the 18th and 19th centuries - there were 4 or 5 I think. One of the manors they owned until the end of the 19th century was Schwarzhof (Vardi) near Heimtali and Viljandi (Fellin). I mention Schwarzhof because my grandfather Arved bought it from the last von Bock owner and ran it as a model estate until nationalisation in 1919/1920. My family therefore had a familial as well as commercial link with the von Bock Lachmes family.
A further reason to note the von Bock-Lachmes family is because of Timo von Bock, the so-called Czar's Madman, made famous through Jaan Kross's historical novel of the same name. Timo von Bock-Lachmes was a real person whose manor was Woiseck (Võisiku), later owned by the von zur Mühlen family. My grandfather Arved was home-schooled at Võisiku in the early 1890s for a couple of years with a number of other boys of his same background because the lady of the house happened to be his aunt.
By contrast, the Suddenbach von Bocks first appeared in Poland around 1600 when a Thomas von Bock obtained a patent from the Polish king renewing his noble status on 10.3.1600. Such patents were sought for purposes of prestige and often too to gain access to benefices not otherwise open to persons whose titles of nobility were of more recent creation. Thomas already owned the manor of Suddenbach in Livonia at this time. Swedish captain Georg Johann von Bock was admitted to the Estonian Knighthood in 1745 and all the von Bocks of the House of Suddenbach were admitted to the Livonian Knighthood in 1747. This information is drawn from "Adelslexikon XVII Nachträge, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels", C A Starke Verlag, Limburg/Lahn, 2008 p.100..
The Adelsmatrikel oder Ritterbank vom Jahre 1747, the Livonian Knighthood's formal list of its membership since 1747, tells us the von Bocks of the House of Suddenbach died out about 1815. (see "Zur Geschichte der Ritterschaften von Livländische und Oesel", herausgegeben von den Livländischen Ritterschaften und von der Oeselschen Ritterschaft, Ilmgau Verlag, Pfaffenhofen/Ilm, 1974)
As a last point, it should go without saying that noble families were always very particular about their distinctive identity, even if they happened to share their name with another family, and the device Baltic German noble families have always used was to add the suffix 'aus dem Hause', abbreviated to 'a.d.H'.
I hope we have now sufficiently addressed all the issues and established that it's the von Bocks of the House of Lachmes that we are always talking about in connection with the von Brasch genealogy.
Thanks

To Jay and Eike,
As someone who is well studied in heraldry, I can tell you that it is not unheard of for noble families with different surnames and sometimes even with the same or similar surnames to share or have very similar coats off arms.
In the case of the von Bock-Lachmes family, no genealogical link has been established in their case to the German Freiherren von Bock or to the von Pollach families as the Wikilink even makes clear. The first recorded mention is in 1581 and 1599 and nothing before. They were presumably already sealing documents with their 'stag' seal as records seem to show that they have been using this coat of arms continuously for all the centuries since, which is also why the Swedish grant of different arms wouldn't have had held much appeal.
What this tells us is that knowing a noble individual's surname isn't always enough when you're dealing with names that aren't unique, you also need details of their manors and their service records, maybe other details too to be able to identify them with certainty.
You also need to bear in mind the appeal of Sweden for Baltic German noblemen in the latter 17th century. Sweden was a dominant power, offering careers and fortune, there were often also wars and pestilence tracking through Livonia and Estonia. Sweden was however also starting to feel the pinch and putting the squeeze on Baltic German landowners, requiring them to prove their rights to inherit their manors and dispossessing quite a few of them in the process (Güterreduktion). The political and social framework was thus in serious flux. The Great Northern War, Charles XII and Peter the Great were all just around the corner.

Coming back to the von Bock-Lachmes coat of arms, someone early on in the family's history, maybe in the sixteenth century, adopted the coat of arms of the Freiherren von Bock, maybe there was even a vague link of a kind, like they had worked for them, been on their retinue, or something like that.

In the German heraldic scheme of things there has never really been anything to stop a person from assuming a coat of arms of their choosing. Monarchs granted coats of arms to their citizens upon request for a fee and such a coat of arms then became protected and couldn't be assumed by anyone else. Monarchs would also grant titles and grant coats of arms in connection with those titles that matched the titles and those coats of arms would then of course be also protected. These are the kinds of coats of arms you see in the Swedish Riddarhuset or that used to hang in the Knights' Houses in Riga, Tallinn, Jelgava and Arensburg. In centuries gone by, the controls were obviously much less tight and a family like the von Bock-Lachmes could easily assume the red stag coat of arms as they did in far away Livonia and no one in Germany would have noticed our cared. It was a matter of relative prestige and making your contribution count.

I hope that helps to explain that issue a bit better. Thanks.

Jens, thank you for your very thorough explanation.

If there was no international jurisdiction, or even regard for other heraldic authorities, it's easy to see how coats of arms could be 'recycled' or 'borrowed from', for various reasons.

Silghty off topic, but in the same vein, there is a well know 'family' of coat of arms called the Leliwa coat of arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leliwa_coat_of_arms

Now, why do similar arms suddenly start appearing in medieval Sweden?

https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Slatte_nr_97
https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Boose_nr_275
https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Finckenberg_nr_159

Same as with the Bock coat of arms? Could they be variations based on some assumed family connection that is now forgotten or which was pretty obscure to begin with? These Leliwa style coat of arms all belong to families introduced after the short lived Poland-Sweden personal union, so they could be 'complimentary imitations' of various coats of arms belonging to old szlachta families...

Hi Jay,
No, there was never ever any overarching international system of control governing heraldry or the the main underpinnings of the system of nobility in Europe but every country followed broadly the same general rules, with local differences. Those with knowledge of heraldry can usually readily distinguish Swedish heraldry from, say, German or French or Italian or Polish or Russian. And if you follow the history a bit, you'll see how the oldest European titles of count (Graf, greve, comte, conte) and baron (friherre, Freiherr) deriving more or less from the old Carolingian Empire, were soon well established in the German lands, in England and France. After the Reformation, Denmark was among the first of the Nordic countries to introduce counts and barons as a way of reaffirming its own national sovereignty and Sweden did likewise in about 1561, but went further and set templates for the coronets of rank and what the coats of arms for its counts and barons should look like. (Actually, Denmark soon did this too.) Poland had a very different constitution based on the equality of every nobleman, large and small, and the will of its parliament or sejm, up to about 1750, was that there be no titles of nobility in Poland. But this was a futile dream because big Polish magnate families like the Radziwili, Sanguszko and Zamoyski already possessed prince and count titles from the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna that had already been recognised in Poland as long ago as 1572 or thereabouts and by the latter half of the 18th century, the Polish elective monarchy was crumbling and the neighbouring countries, Austria, Prussia and Russia, were waiting to gobble up what remained of Poland. Poland ceased to exist in 1795 by which time the duchy of Kurland was subsumed into Russia and became again finally part of the historic Baltic Provinces.
Poland thus had had counts (woiwode) and barons who were initially royal office holders and then became elected representatives of the constituent assemblies of the kingdom, the knighthoods, like the duchy of Kurland and Semgallia. This dignity of being ranked as a baron of the realm was accorded in the Deed of Association King Sigismund August of Poland signed with the Kurland Knighthood representatives in about 1560 and Russia finally conceded baronial rank to the members of all the old Kurland Knighthood families during the 19th century as a result.
Russia had no heraldry system of its own until Peter the Great introduced it in about 1710 or 1722 when he introduced barons, counts and princes. He also adopted the largely German heraldic system but Russian heraldry (grants) is often characterised by the inclusion of the Russian imperial eagle in the achievement. The Russian system of nobility was unusual too because it was based on a Table of Ranks and you could acquire, through State service, personal nobility or in the higher ranks, hereditary nobility and elect never to receive a grant of a coat of arms. Grants of arms were expensive unless they came attached to the award of a title from the emperor when they became free. As Russia had taken over so much territory in the 18th century, its practice was often to simple recognise the noble status of those claiming it in those territories subject to requisite proofs. Paul I started the process of formally recognising all the old Rurik princely families of Russia in 1798 which continued the process Peter the Great had started of bringing Russia's old boyars into Russia's new nobility system. Right through the 18th century, however, Russian czars often preferred to seek prince and count titles for their favourites from the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna first, rather than risk outrage by granting such titles themselves first. By the time of Alexander I, the Holy Roman Empire was no more but Russia had also been victorious in the wars of Liberation and a Russian czar's grants of titles no longer needed to occur under subterfuge.
It remains only to say that the Holy Roman Emperor, as the successor to the Carolingian monarchy, had remained the fount of all honours throughout all Germanic lands for centuries up to 1805 and even beyond, which is why Russian czars and Polish kings would continue to ask him to ennoble persons on their behalf. By the late 18th century, even individuals with money were petitioning the emperor direct for ennoblement or elevations in rank. Even in Whig England in this period too, some peerage titles could be bought and the abuse was widespread and disdained.

That said, there were a number of significant controls in force to protect the use of arms and the lawful use of titles and noble staus.
As regards the Baltic Knighthoods, whose families have been our main focus, I should add that each of the 4 Knighthoods of Livonia, Estonia, Kurland and Oesel have always had tight admissions practices and set high standards upon their members and required that their members kept their genealogies up to date. Very detailed genealogies were published by all 4 Knighthoods in the late 1920s and 1930s in separate series known as the "Genealogisches Handbuch der Baltischen Ritterschaften" with "Teil Estland, etc" added for the respective Knighthood or noble corporation. More recently, since 2011, the successor Knighthood body in Germany, the Verband der Baltischen Ritterschaften eV, has been producing a new series of genealogies based on the 1920/30s format entitled "Genealogisches Handbuch der Baltischen Ritterschaften (Neue Folge), and it was I who translated all the introductory material in the 9 volumes that have been published to 2020 into English.The section on "Knighthood Membership Lists - Family Registers - Laws on the Use of Names" would be very helpful to your understanding of how the nobility in elite closed groups like Knighthoods succeeded in protecting their genealogies and their coats of arms, what was in it for them, how that came to have an international character, the fact that the 4 Baltic Knighthoods have always been seen by the German communion of nobility as belonging to them. As the work is copyright protected, I will seek permission before attempting to download my translation for you.
You asked about Polish coats of arms. These are a specialised field all on their own and the accepted wisdom is that most of these Polish coats of arms are more tribal in character than familial in the normal Western European sense. If they were tribal and became, so to speak, a rallying point in times of battle, those of a lesser lineage who had rallied to this standard continued to rally to it and simply came to also adopt it as theirs. There may be lots of other explanations. Another is that the designs are always very simple and therefore of great appeal. There is after all only a limited number of items/objects and colours you can use to decorate any heraldic shield. These simple old designs often also suggest great antiquity which was another source of their appeal.
At the end of the day, if ancestors were connected through their use of the same seal or coat of arms to a living family member who then distinguished himself and who was then rewarded by his sovereign with the grant of a title and a new grant of a coat of arms incorporating or augmenting his old arms, then that was a happy outcome for him and one we so often see when we inspect the coats of arms of those elevated to barons and counts in Sweden in particular.

I've just checked the website for the Verband der Baltischen Ritterschaften eV - English version; this site doesn't contain anything much on the genealogical front but it does contain an excellent lecture by Baron Ernst Dietrich von Mirbach on the role and functions of the Baltic Knighthoods which I happened to have also translated for the Knighthoods and can thus also highly recommend. Here's the link:
https://www.baltische-ritterschaften-en.de/library/ernst-dietrich-b...

In case you want to follow up on the German version of the Verband link for details about work on the genealogies, here's the link:
https://www.baltische-ritterschaften-de.de/genealogen/

Unfortunately, while 1 or 2 sample printed genealogies are provided, the introductory comments which are so germane here, aren't, so I'll still need to get copyright approval. Cheers.

Jens, thanks, that's a very informative read, as well as the links you provided (mostly able to read the English material sadly).

I'd never realised the extent to which the knightly orders still managed things in the Baltics up to 1920. This was fairly exceptional, given how differently the administration was carried out practically everywhere else. I've no ancestors who lived in the present day Baltic states, but I've come across a huge number of very distant cousins (typically in the 10th to 20th cousin range) who lived, and died, there, and those who managed to escape to Germany before or during WW2.

I assume, when it comes to heraldry, the German-Nordic system is largely similar both in the Baltics, German speaking countries and the Nordic countries, and similar to the heraldic traditions in Finland (which are based on the Swedish traditions). I haven't been much involved with things heraldic nowadays, unfortunately, but I did one time try to familiarize myself with Finnish and English heraldry, rather something like 30 years ago, though.

As that was a fairly long time ago, my knowledge of heraldry is maybe rather rusty these days.

I find it interesting that you took on the task of translating something so volumous, especially as I can imagine some of the difficulties in the process based on what I know about the differences between different heraldic systems. I did something similar on a much much smaller scale once, attempting to explain the workings and basic principles of Finnish heraldry in an English translation.

Hmm.. I notice you have some Swedish ancestry, enough to make us very distant cousins as well.

Hi Jay,

So, yes I do have some ancient Swedish links but many of them are Baltic German or even Anglo-Scottish people who saw military service in Sweden and were rewarded for it there, such as the Zoege von Manteuffel, the von Uexküll, the Pierson of Balmadis, the von Tiesenhausen, the Bennett, the counts Douglas, the counts Dücker, the von Rosen and many more. My father christened me Erland as my third given name which is an old Swedish name and that was in honour of some Swedish antecedent but I never learned from him why.

In any case, the linkages to Sweden and the Swedish nobility run long and deep for very many of the Estonian and Livonian Knighthood noble families because Sweden provided such an important bulwark of protection for nearly 150 years against attacks and encroachment from Russia which was always the biggest source of fear and from where the attacks laying waste the land had always come. And it was also a splendid military and naval employer and close to home. And as I have remarked before, the Swedish kings had always been pleased to allow German law, custom and language to continue even as they made a level of Swedish improvements. The Lutheran faith was a common thread for both.

I'm glad you've been able to read Ernst-Dietrich von Mirbach's lecture on the role and functions of the Knighthoods because it will hopefully help to explain why Knighthood members were so committed to the institution of the Knighthood and why they expected so much of themselves and of each other and would have always been so determined to maintain the integrity of their noble institution and of its associated heraldry. As far as they were concerned, you can't have one without the other, and they still see things in broadly these terms although they obviously function only in the private sphere these days.

I've had a response back from the copyright owners and am now also able to share with you the section of the preface to the new genealogical tomes the Baltic Knighthood Association in Germany produces called "Genealogisches Handbuch der Baltischen Ritterschaften (Neue Folge)" that I translated for publication and that sets out how people become members. This section rounds out the picture you would have been forming after reading Mirbach's piece about the Knighthoods' roles and functions. If you're interested, I can also send you a further little section from the publication that I've translated on the imperial Russian Table of Ranks - the emphasis here is a little more specific than you'd get in Wikipedia to the issue of acquisition of hereditary nobility as opposed to nobility for life and how much getting a grant of arms was a question of individual prestige, great expense and a special petition to the Heraldry Department of the Ruling Senate and not a requirement for most persons who achieved ennoblement through State service in imperial Russia. The only exceptions of course were those persons whom the emperor personally ennobled or granted a title to - their coats of arms came in the patent the emperor signed personally and were thus always granted gratis.
Here's my translation:

https://files.atgo.org/GHdBR(NF)PrefaceKnighthoodMembershipLists.docx

There's always lots more to discuss but I've doubtless exhausted your patience by now. I do hope you (and other readers) will enjoy the links and information I've provided. Cheers.

Jens, thank you for the link and information (consider me overwhelmed in the positive sense).

If you can, I'd be interesting in having a look at the Table of Ranks material, even though it's not directly related to my area of interest as much as heraldry is (I need to get reacquainted with this subject matter, been 20 to 30 years since my last 'visit').

Will you be posting here or do you want me to PM you?

It is in fact a little unfortunate that similarity of coats of arms is not necessarily any indication of ancestry, because it could give one valuable pointers where to direct one's search of ancestors. (Note how I have only 2313 ancestors on record).

The 'von' vs. 'v.' is an interesting 'touch' BTW.

As for genealogy, most of the families you mentioned have branches that come under my 'distant cousins'. Mostly due to their connections to Grubbe in Sweden as I mentioned, but also because can trace their ancestry to the Tavast family. Sadly, I have no Baltic ancestors, my German roots (such as they are) point to the Hansa towns and Borussia.

Hi Jay,
My apologies for the delay in responding. I was having difficulty converting my files into links but here they are:

https://files.atgo.org/ImpRussianTableofRanks.xlsx

https://files.atgo.org/TableofRanksGHdBR(NF)2017-2021.docx

Please read the Word document in conjunction with what I've already written to you as the two lots of information are intended to be complementary.

As regards to what coats of arms tell you, I think ancient coats of arms are often only a component piece of evidence to be looked at in conjunction with all the other factors one can marshal about an old ancestor, such as his or her parentage and children, what guild he or she belonged to, what property they may have owned, what witness they may have borne, what seal they may have used and when, who they married, their house marks, etc. A lot of records have been lost in war but there are lots still around and sometimes too, coats of arms underwent some changes that might have made the original coat look quite different to later versions but essentially they're still the same. Good examples of this could be the coats of arms of the von Knorring family which usually shows a blue pitcher on a gold shield, sometimes with 2 handles, sometimes without, sometimes with just one. Another example could be the von Vietinghoff genannt Scheel whose arms are usually shown as a silver shield with a black bend containing 3 golden pilgrim's shells, but these shells have sometimes been depicted as roundels and in other colours, which could confuse those unfamiliar. What I'm saying is that coats of arms are a valuable tool to guide genealogical and historical research but they don't necessarily provide the full picture. A coat of arms may not be faithfully represented down through the ages.

One good example in the Baltic German sense are the 2 families Zoege von Manteuffel (to whom I am related) from Estonia and Livonia and the Kurlandic von Manteuffel-Szoege. If you look at their coats of arms they're almost identical except for a difference of colours in the bottom half of both shields. Both families descend from Gerardus Soye who was a Danish vassal in Estonia in 1325 but the connection, except for the shared arms and name seems to have largely stopped there. The families obviously stayed in touch, notwithstanding, and, following a conviction that had grown within the Estonian Zoeges that they were also related to the Pomeranian von Manteuffels, both they and the Kurlandic branch changed their names around 1600 respectively to Zoege (Szoege) von Manteuffel and to von Manteuffel-Szoege. And these are the name forms and the versions of their arms that they still use today.

All this is to say that where people are involved there are invariably also interesting stories that may explain why a coat of arms isn't quite what you expect in terms of an ancient ancestor. In later times of course, when there were ennoblements or grants of arms, the details are usually well documented. In the German case the documentation is reliable to this day through the Deutsches Adelsarchiv and its publications, and for the Baltic German nobility, which of course also falls under the umbrella of the Deutsches Adelsarchiv, there is the Verband der Baltischen Ritterschaften eV.

What we do in Geni runs in parallel to a degree, but then goes way past what is captured in the German published genealogies of the nobility because it captures all descent and isn't selective. In the genealogies of the nobility, regard is paid only to those lines of descent that would have counted as legitimate according to the rules as they were up until 1919 in Germany when the Weimar Constitution supplanted the former monarchies and the 1000-year old system of nobiliary law and how nobility was transmitted from one generation to the next. (Read the Russian Revolution for the Baltic States.) That's how they record these genealogies too going forward. That said, the genealogies of the nobility can still throw some useful light on the work being done by researches in Geni, who may be people with all manner of skills. And there is also often a particular doggedness and determination that every researcher also needs in going after his or her subject, along with a deep knowledge of the epoch and period in order to understand the sources they're accessing in the context in which they're finding them.

I'm only writing all this because I want to encourage, rather than discourage, you in the realm of heraldry. It is a field quite as complex as that of genealogy. Just when you think you've got something away safe and squared, you strike a counter example which shows that all is not as tight and simple as one might have supposed and wished for. And isn't that in the end why we have groups and exchange fora like this in Geni to exchange views and knowledge and wisdom?

Cheers. Jens

Hi Jens,

Many thanks for the information and the links which I successfully downloaded for later reference. The Russian and Baltic heraldry is not a factor in my own genealogy which deals primarily only with the Swedish (Finnish) connections and ancestry. However, it's all very interesting from a historical point of view.

The marshalling of arms is an advance (and complex) topic which I've never really looked into, since I mostly studied the basics with an emphasis on 'burgher' arms, not so much the arms of the nobility. It's been my assumption that the marshalling occurs through marriage with heraldic heiresses, but I'm not sure of the exact rules. I would assume that changes in arms indicate cadet branches, so arms that are very similar indicate common ancestry, but this probably varies a lot from one country to the next.

There's quite a lot for me to look into beyond just re-familiarizing myself with the basics.

There aren't many coats of arms in my ancestry (and those originate under Swedish authority and if they allude to any older ancestry or not is a complete mystery and rather unlikely as well I'd say), and,... I've not managed to inherit any of those. There are few cases of sigils, but those are apparently a vexed issue in Finnish genealogy when used by people apparently having no family connection on record. In other words, not so much because they cannot be identified but because it remains unclear what their right to use them is based on.

Geni is an extremely effective tool and a vibrant community and my main arena nowdays complimented by some DNA related sites (my pet peeve here is that you can only upload FamilyTreeDNA test results). I still haven't decided whether upgrading to a 'Pro' account might be worthwhile. I might be if I managed to study and become a little more proficient at genealogy and tracking down the records. That proposition is a little daunting, because it involves looked into old handwriting and learning archaic Swedish.

Thanks again for your help, Jay.

Hi Jay,

I appreciate that Baltic German heraldry mightn't figure large in your sphere of interests but I have talked about Baltic Germans from Estonia and Livonia and their heraldry because so many of them saw service in Sweden in its heyday and were rewarded through recognitions in Sweden as noble, through awards of nobility and through promotions within the ranks of the Swedish nobility. The Swedish Riddarhuset put out a fascinating 3-volume tome a year or 2 ago called "Ridarhusets vapensköldar" which is its own valuable reference guide. Maybe you already know of it?

Beyond that, Sweden has always managed a very well regulated heraldic system where burgers too could apply to the Swedish Herold for a grant of arms and have such a grant registered and protected within Sweden and its dominions as a result. And Swedish grants have always held in such high repute that they were promptly recognised in other European countries and in turn protected there.

All that said, you shouldn't need to worry too much about the marshalling of arms. What 'marshalling' means is using coats of arms of families you are related to tell your story. Historically, it was done to display heraldic heiresses, just as you have described, but these would have also been heiresses who brought property and wealth into the family. Marital arms would be the most common form of this kind of marshalling where husband and wife would display their arms together, often as an achievement with the two shields slightly inclined towards each other at the top and under the one helm or wreath for burghers, or under the appropriate coronet of rank for the nobility. If you take marshalling still further, you'd get to quarterings in a shield, or even more complex sub-divisions. Check out the Swedish royal coat of arms for an indication of what I mean. In essence in the Swedish royal arms, you get the original quartered shield representing Sweden with the inescutcheon representing the current royal family descended from the French house of Bernadotte. The concept of marshalling is very universal within heraldry and I'm not even aware of any peculiarities unique to Sweden you might need to look out for. If you like I can send you some details od good international reference material that should readily meet your needs and overcome you concerns and hesitancy.

Regards, Jens

Hi, Jens.

Please do provide those links for details about marshalling, though the topic is a little advanced and probably beyond my immediate scope, I'd rather use solid reference material if possible.

Indeed, I've noticed how widely connected the Baltic nobility was to Sweden and Swedish nobility, not least because as far as the more distant cousins go, I seem to have found equal numbers in Sweden and the Baltics (Finland still, naturally, having the largest numbers).

I was not aware of "Riddahusets vapensköldar", thanks for the tip. I've mostly been using the online adelsvapen.com which is a good source, for arms (though not a complete one for the genalogical part, and sadly lacking any solid information on the blazoning).

I'm not sure what's the current legal status of arms in Sweden, and burgher arms at least can be freely assumed as long as they are different from any known arms. I know there's Swedish heraldry society SHF and they seem to be maintaining a register. There's a lot of information on their site, but my Swedish is not up to the job (needs brushing up, a lot...).

Thanks, Jay

Hi Jay,

What I'm sending you are good authoritative reference guides that should be available to you through libraries or Amazon or online that describe the history and key features of heraldry in most European countries. The books I'm referring you to aren't recent publications unfortunately. It may be that you can find more recent publications. What seems to happen in fields like heraldry is that it comes into fashion for a while and the interest generates quite a few publications, and then the interest tails off again for a few decades. Here are the publication I'd recommend to you:

1. Stephen Slater, "The Complete Book of Heraldry - An international history of heraldry and its contemporary uses", Hermes House, London, 2002, 2003, 2010;

2. Stephen Slater, "The History and Meaning of Heraldry - An illustrated reference to classic symbols and their relevance", Southwater/Anness Publishing, London, 2004;

3. Carl-Alexander von Volborth, "Heraldry - Customs, Rules and Styles", Blandford Press, UK, 1981;

4. David Williamson, "Debrett's Guide to Heraldry and Regalia", Headline Book Publishing PLC, London, 1992;

5. Gert Osvald, "Lexikon der Heraldik" (in German) VEB Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig, 1984

I hope those references will be of some help to you. Best wishes. Jens

Hi Jens,

Thank you for the suggestions. Yes, I've noticed they periodically reprint at least some of the older reference works (I assume their copyright has lapsed) and there's no shortage of publishers of publications when it comes to those. Newer titles might be a little harder to come by. I recognize the name of von Volborth, otherwise I don't have any knowledge of these authors or their books. But... there's always Google and the online shops and second hand book stores.

I've noticed there are even some books published in Swedish, so I will also keep those in mind.

I've copied your list of books for future reference. Thanks again, with best wishes, Jay.

Glad to help, Jay.

What you should take from the info in the references is that marshalling is something practised across heraldry in most countries in always pretty much the same way, thus never big issue.

While marshalling of arms as such occurs more in royal and princely houses and so is rarely seen outside of heraldic achievements for these families or when appearing in royal grants for titles of nobility as discussed earlier, an interesting and important further use of heraldry that I have not mentioned is its use in documenting an aspirant's right to apply for membership in one or other of the ancient international orders of chivalry, such as the Johanniter-Orden (Order of St John of Jerusalen).

In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries new knights had to demonstrate that they descended from knightly families through at least 4 generations and would need to deliver certified armorial family trees called "Ahnentafeln" to the Chapter of the Johanniter-Orden where they sought to be received. Similar provisions applied to a number of the other older orders of chivalry across Europe (such as the Order of the Golden Fleece, but also at many of the endowed Catholic cathedral chapters ('Domstifte') like those in Westphalia and elsewhere) and it wasn't until the latter part of the 18th century that the notion of merit as the driving principal began to take root, notably in Austria Hungary with the creation of the Order of Maria Theresia in about 1757 (in the military context of the Seven Years War against Prussia) and a little later, with the creation of the Order of St Stephen, which was solely for distinguished civil service. By the early 19th century, Austria Hungary had moved right across to a system whereby service in the military and within the organs of government and the Court could win you appointments in one or more of Austria-Hungary's newer orders of merit like the Franz-Josef-Orden or the Orden der Eisernen Krone (Order of the Iron Crown) and, depending on the rank you had achieved in it, with an elevation (up to 1884) into a commensurate rank in the nobility.

Catherine the Great's answer in Russia to the Austrian-Hungarian creations of orders of merit was the creation in 1782 of the 4-class Order of St Vladimir, which was primarily awarded for distinguished civil service but could sometimes also be awarded for distinguished military service when that service could not otherwise be recognised through an award in the dedicated and highly esteemed military Order of St George.

All this is to say that the Russian Order of St Vladimir and Austro-Hungarian Order of the Iron Crown were pretty well neck-to-neck equivalents to each other in their respective countries,

This is all at the margin of what you're interested in, I know, but I've included the info just to show how diverse and fascinating all this material is and how it can help to inform and illuminate other and wider aspects your work and interests. Rather like the ever unfolding work in Geni really...

So in that spirit...

Best regards, Jens

Thanks, Jens.

I'm 'superficially aware' of some of these things, but not very familiar with them. A lot of these auxiliary sciences of history are inter-related, and I'm always open to learning more, at least when I find something either relevant, or interesting, or possibly both.

It seems, heraldry has evolved in response to what is its perceived purpose in society which probably is why we see those 'baroque' quarterings of multiple upon multiple arms displayed on one shied, none of them necessarily very legible...

As I've said, not familiar with the technicalities of marshalling (as it does not apply to most personal arms, whether noble or burgher arms), but it seems that there's been a tendency to go back to much simpler arms, also in the case of the families that could legimitely display a large number of quarterings.

Which, in my opinion, is a smart move and makes for much more attractive arms. I know there are purists (medievalists), especially in Finland, could also be the case in other countries, that mostly approve of simple arms, but often quartered arms appear very attractive, and are sometimes more recognizable as well. What I'm trying to say, 'naturally' derived quarterings can be simpler than artifically created 'distinctiveness' in the case of many of he newer arms which are 'intricate' in the worst cases, while ingeniously simple in the best cases.

Tastes differ, as does the purpose.

Best wishes, Jay

Hi Jay,

I note what you say but I do think one needs to be careful about what one means. Heraldry is an old discipline and art and the aesthetic attaching to it has changed often over the centuries as people's tastes have changed. Marshalling of arms is simply a tool you can use in heraldry, not a must, and of course if those who look at your heraldic achievement don't understand what all the quarterings mean, then you simply come across as a show-off. Quarterings had historic value when each quartering represented a territory or province and, so, has most meaning in royal heraldry. It obviously also still means something in the quartered coats of arms granted to princes, dukes and, say, counts by their monarchs even if the reasoning is no longer apparent to us today.

You might be interested to know in that regard that Russian, Prussian and even Austrian rulers when granting such more complex arms even as late as the 19th century in conjunction with a higher title invariably authorised the recipient to also continue using their far simpler old family coat of arms if they so chose, and on many occasions, they did. One example that comes to mind are the Kurlandic counts von Lambsdorff who were created Russian counts in 1817 and who mostly preferred to use their ancient Westphalian coat of arms of the silver shield with the twin turreted black castle surmounted by their count's coronet rather than the much more elaborate arms with supporters, motto, quarterings and an inescutcheon.

What I'm saying is that if the aesthetic now is to use your coat of arms in an older and simpler form, then that's no problem now and never has been, even in the 19th century when tastes were so much more flamboyant and even grandly baroque.

If you have a coat of arms it's a more or less unique identifier within Geni and your genealogy, or should be, and should be blazoned (shown) wherever it rightly belongs in your story. If, for reasons of aesthetics in a later period, you can refashion the same coat of arms into the look of today, no problem. Indeed, in some of the examples I've given before with the coat of arms of the von Knorring family, the golden pitcher on a blue shield has been variously represented over the centuries, including in different shapes and with 1 or with 2 handles. There has always been room for artistic licence here, as long as the charge(s) and the colours(tinctures) have remained consistent. After all, the aim is to be able to identify the individual holder of the coat of arms as belonging to forebears of the family that bore the same coat of arms - it's one of the things one has in common, one of the ways in which researching them through Geni can be facilitated.

The only people who might 'make up' coats of arms are people who haven't had one. But then, such people aren't of heraldic interest anyway unless they can be traced in other ways because there is simply no heraldic link and a heraldic link isn't something you can just fashion out of thin air. If it were otherwise it would be like inventing ancestors and expecting them to be acceptable in Geni - and that's not going to happen!

Best wishes, Jens

Hi Jens,

Yeah.. bucket shop heraldry and fake titles is something to avoid in polite conversations. Mind you, a lot of people are purposefully lead astray by these operators, making use of the false premise that coats of arms and names always match up.

I haven't inherited any arms since there are none to inherit in my agnatic line (AFAIK, though there is a gap, flaw, or an 'extra-paternal event' somewhere there although my cousin disagrees... but that's another issue and only relevant if the line would lead to someone with either assumed or granted arms to inherit), but potentially I could make use of some modern family association arms within the terms and limitations that may apply. I also know that you can always assume arms as long as they are don't have any more than one similarity with any pre-existing arms, but that's a somewhat different matter.

I found an interesting article, by the way. It is highly likely you already know everything it has to say, but it sums up the succession rather nicely.

https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/6075635/944807.pdf

Personally, I like most historical styles and fashions, but I wanted to point out that to my knowledge there are purists who disapprove anything else than what is directly based on the way the coats of arms were depicted in medieval times when their primary use was in battle and/or tournaments (a little later on). As you said, though, the style is a personal preference, only the blazon is unalterable.

Best wishes, Jay

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the Sunnquist article which discloses detail about the situation in Sweden regarding transmission of names and heraldry I hadn't known and am very glad to now have and reaffirms what I had earlier told you about the transmission of names in Germany since 1976.

Sunnquist alerts us to the interesting prospect in Germany that someone some day who has come by a noble name and title, albeit not by descent, might seek to argue in court that their lawfully established right to name and title should also also give them a right to the family's coat of arms, despite the fact that such a right to a coat of arms has up until now been acquired solely by descent and matrimony pursuant to ancient agnate law and usage. Thus, to acquire a documented coat of arms by means other than descent or marriage would be "unbefugt" and no one could be entitled to such such a transmission.

I hope you don't mind my saying that the translation into English of Suunquist's article could be a little sharper and more reader friendly.

If you do get around to checking out some of the references I gave you about heraldry, you will see examples of quite a few different artistic styles over the centuries. I don't know whether you live in Stockholm but if you do, a visit to the Riddarhuset to view all the vapansköldar of the the Swedish nobility going back to the 17th century in the grand hall can be rewarding for the evolution of styles. Of course, you can get a sense of that too from the volumes I've referred you to, and the von Volborth and Slater volumes are maybe best here for that kind of stylistic spread.

I don't know what to say really about those who hold so fervently to early medieval styles of shields, helms and crests, except to say that if your family is genuinely old enough and you can trace your line of descent back to someone who can be documented as having been a knight serving in the crusades or, say, in the Teutonic Order or even up to the Reformation, then fair enough, go for it, you are properly entitled to do so.

But no one must ever attempt to combine a medieval shield and crest with a much more modern coronet of rank or modern mantling. To do so is incongruous and absurd.

People stopped using personal heraldry a very long time ago, and since then, heraldry has served all sorts of other purposes, including decorative, to mark possessions, to self-identify and to identify one's own 'tribe' if you will. So to see heraldry too narrowly in terms only of medieval combat is, in my mind, to deny the passage of time.

In the end, Its a matter of aesthetics as I've said before.

Best regards, Jens

Hi Jens,

Glad you liked the article.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'more reader friendly', though the English version is the only one I've read. The interesting take is the possible confusion about the right to arms under German law, whereas there is no similar confusion under Swedish law. It is, at least, fairly clear there that the arms follow the agnatic principle, at least when it comes to granted arms. Assumed arms, those of medieval times, that's where I'd like more information.

You did get my point about the 'medievalists' pretty accurately. Personally, there's nothing wrong with the medieval style if that is someone's preference, and those who are entitled to use the great helm probably would be wise to follow that style. However, I don't think there is any other reason to limit artictic license and creativity as long as it's applied consistenly like you said.

You could go for the historical context and follow the style that suits the time and place the arms were granted (or assumed), or you could choose to display your arms according to your personal preference. The medieval style has one strong point, though, admittedly: it is clear, simple and legible and in that sense it fits the requirements of modern graphic design.

The one thing to avoid, in my opinion, is cookie cutter heraldry where everyone is displaying their arms in some single 'approved' style. Variety is always nice to see.

Best regards, Jay

Hi Jay,

What I meant by 'more reader friendly' was that the English usage in the translation was a little stilted at times and some sentences were too long and too cumbersome for the native English reader and the text could have used a bit more editing to make it easier to read and more intelligible. I say that as someone who does his share of translations and knows what he's talking about.

In medieval times all coats of arms began as assumed and only became associated with particular families as those families became, and remained, prominent and asserted their prestige through generations both in war and in the local-national sphere in situations where they could use their coat of arms to identify themselves and it became increasingly necessary for them and all the others like them to have their coats of arms (and identities) formally registered, widely known and protected. This was the bedrock of the feudal system when monarchs would summon their leading men (or barons) to royal council at their courts to win their agreement on taxes or proposals for going to war, and the mechanism used was to identify them by their titles. These titles had already come to be described in their heraldry (or heraldic achievements) so the process of linking certain prominent individuals by and through their heraldry was already well established by the early medieval period. The next development was for heraldry to divide into personal and official heraldry, like we still know it today, the coats of arms individuals have and families share and the coats of arms towns and cities have, and even some corporations and government institutions.

So we all started out with assumed coats of arms. You could say that as an individual rose in prestige and prominence in times gone by (and I'm talking here from at least the 16th century on for the most determined souls) and the mood so took him, he was able to acquire either a burgher coat of arms by way of a patent from his monarch that was then protected by law or he was able to seek elevation to the nobility and acquire a title and a commensurate grant of a coat of arms by the same means.

Towns and cities have long also applied to herald's offices for well-designed coats of arms or heraldic devices to identify for their municipalities. I'm sure you're aware of many examples in your own area.

As an aside, Poland was an unusual case as a 'noble commonwealth' from about 1560 to about 1750 in that it had spurned aristocratic titles for members of the Polish nobility or szlachta and would not allow its king to grant them to Poles although he was not prevented from granting them to foreigners. The premiss was that even the most minor Polish nobleman should always be the equal of the country's grandest magnate. On the other hand, the titles of 'count' for the major national office holders ('woywode', 'staroste'), and 'baron' for the highly respected delegates to the national 'sejm' or parliament were seen as revered titles of office that continued in use all along, often passing from father to son and, after the final dissolution of Poland in 1795, ended up being confirmed as hereditary aristocratic titles for the respective families anyway by the new rulers from Austria, Russia and Prussia. Such is the remarkable way of these of these things.

I do agree with you that there can be no one approved style of heraldry for all and that the 'cookie cutter' model as you have called it is definitely NOT acceptably.

I also agree with you that those whose coats of arms are genuinely old enough to entitle them to display their coat of arms in the medieval fashion should do so if they so wish, provided they avoid anachronisms and infelicities - things that don't fit with the period and don't look right or good. So no inappropriate charges in the shields and no coronets of rank, etc.

By all means, I encourage anyone to display their arms according their own personal preference but please follow heraldic standards and rules making the resulting coat of arms something others can readily appreciate and understand and something that will be a lasting contribution to the artistic heritage and aesthetics of heraldry down through the ages. The Vollborth and Slater references give lots of good examples of how heraldry has been handled differently over the ages as a guide.

Best regards, Jens

Hi Jens,

I see now what you mean by 'user friendly', though I did not get the same feeling out of it myself. Perhaps in part because what I've mostly been familiar with when it comes to a comprehensive look at (English) heraldy is what A.C. Fox-Davies wrote in his inimitable style.

That may also explain why I don't really know all that much about continental heraldry, as the English language reference books mostly deal with English/Scottish/Irish heraldry, and the only additional information I've had a look at is what's been written in Finnish about (essentially) what makes up the current ideas about heraldry in Finland. ( Olof Werner William Eriksson being one of my more distant cousins, among others).

However, you are right about those things being remarkable, as is anything connected to history.

My instincts tell me that that it is those arms that were originally assumed rather than granted must be held in higher esteem than arms granted later, or arms assumed in modern times where this can legally be done. When it comes to the practice in Sweden (and Nordic heraldry), there is a gap in my knowledge what were the legal requirements for granting arms, whether noble or burgher, in the intervening time leading to present times when arms are no longer granted but assumed only, as far as is my understanding about the situation in Sweden/Finland (at least).

Some of my ancestors were, in fact, granted arms, but as none of them are in the direct paternal line... as far as I can say that I even know my direct paternal line for any degree of certainty... meaning that, consequently, I do not stand any chance of inheriting any of them. However, at least now, with the benefit of sites such as Geni, I can at least say that I know a limited number of my ancestors, as well as their arms, where such existed, though I still haven't found a verbal source that includes the blazons for their arms.

To be honest, I mostly familiarised myself with the most immediate technical aspects back then, 30 years ago. Since then, I've been 'neglecting' my studies but hope to brush up on my knowledge in due course.

Best regards, Jay

Hi Jay,

I note some typos in what I wrote yesterday - sorry - and the little aside on Polish practice during the time of the Polish Commonwealth really wasn't relevant to anything we were talking about either, so again, sorry for interposing it. A little flourish of mine, if you will.

What I can add today is another reference for you on heraldry which provides a useful world view and is generalist in nature and not too detailed. It's also of pocket-book size and by an author I've referred you to before. Its actually a first class reference guide if you can still find it somewhere:

Carl Alexander von Volborth: "Heraldry of the World", Blandford Press Ltd, London, 1973, ISBN 0 7137 0647 3. (Originally published in Denmark as 'Alverdens Heraldik i Farver by Politikens Forlag)

I don't agree with you that the arms (do you mean those assumed longest ago?) are to be esteemed more highly than any others, including those assumed later on or those granted by some historical circumstance later. The reason I disagree is because arms, assumed or otherwise, tell a story about the person who assumed them, or the family that still holds them, or the person to whom they were granted, and those arms only make full sense when seen in the context of all we know about the person who assumed them or to whom they were granted. It's the historic and, if you like, also the genealogical, link between the two that enhances both, the heraldry and the genealogy. If you were to list just family members in sequence one after the other as in a succession of rote dates as in school, it would quickly become very boring: but if we can discover a little bit more about each individual, what they did, where they lived, what sort of achievements they had in life, if we can 'colour them in' as it were, they become much more three-dimensional and we can feel much more truly linked to our past.

It just so happens that in centuries past the system of public rewards took certain forms expressed through heraldry and sometimes through elevations to the nobility. Although this is a system we no longer maintain, it behoves us to learn how to read and interpret these expressions, in this case heraldry, not only in terms of our thinking today but also, to the extent we can, in terms of the thinking of contemporaries of the person we might be studying at a given moment in time.

To put all this another way, we can look at several examples in Baltic German heraldry for the very oldest of assumed arms and I refer you here to the von Wrangell, the von Fersen, the von Stackelberg or the von Taube families. In each case, beautifully simply elegant arms with just one charge; the Wrangell - silver with a black fess hatched on the topside only; the Fersen - blue, a winged fish salient with a golden ring in its mouth; the Stackelberg - gold, twin brown tree stumps rising from a green mound, each each bearing one green leaf; the Taube - gold, a tree stump plucked out by its roots bearing 2 green leaves. Over the course of time and specifically in the 17 and 18th centuries, several lines of each of these families independently became Swedish 'friherrer' (barons) and were each granted distinctive, augmented coats of arms. Several also achieved the rank of Swedish counts. During the Russian period, the rank of baron was extended to all the other lines of the each family, not just the lines that had been expressly elevated to that rank in the past, and it was these other lines that continued to use the old 'assumed' versions of their family's arms, just as they had always done. Now, it is and remains a question of personal taste and aesthetics as to whether any of the descendants of those who held Swedish titles would choose to use the Swedish coats of arms that had been granted to their ancestors or whether they would prefer to revert to their ancestral assumed arms, simply because they are so simple and elegant. This is a choice for them as it has always been and as I have always said. What I may not have said is that the arms granted by the monarch to their ancestor would have always also featured their own family arms in some way, so that this aspect was never ignored but always also there.

What I come back to wanting to say is that even someone today assuming arms would want those arms to say something about them. Arms have always been an extension of the individual who assumed them historically or to whom they were granted, and they really only make sense if seen in that way. They don't makle sense if viewed like a piece of personal jewellery that can be donned or doffed at personal whim. Arms are a thing you take on for the long term and hand down to your successors. This is how its always worked and been understood.

For those who don't have a coat of arms, assuming one these days isn't a problem provided you play be the rules of heraldry, and you'd be setting a tradition, something for your descendants to inherit. We all have to begin sometime and I see no problem with that.

Best wishes. Jens

Hi Jens,

I don't mind your detouring to the Polish Commonwealth. I wish it were more relevant to me, but there's no genealogical trace or even DNA pointing me further south than present day Estonia. There's still the mystery of the Finckenberg arms being the Leliwa type, so there I have ancestors having what looks like a Polish type of coat of arms with nothing to point in that direction. Might just be what was considered fashionable and trendy at the time.

Thanks for the book tips; I'll see what I can find, but out of print Heraldry books are not something readily available in these parts, unless I try to find some online.

I've come across the same idea you said about modern assumed arms being drawn up so they have something to say about the person, and even coming up with non-traditional charges like the DNA helix and so on.

That's in part why I said that I felt the arms that were originally assumed in the middle ages were to 'more esteemed', because of their designs were the most original, and simpler than what we have seen since. In addition to the families you mentioned, I might also point to the von Schulmann family and their arms, as well as the arms of the Ruuth family. Simple geometrical patterns. Other considerations maybe more debatable. With the assumed arms, whoever assumed them was someone important enough to do so, as opposed to being granted arms in recognition of some personal achievement. I don't think that distinction is relevant to any significant degree, except in terms of numbers. I haven't tried to confirm it in any manner, but I think the older assumed arms are rarer than the number of later grants, be it simple arms or quarterings. In other words, it's their age, origin, rarity and striking simplicity that makes them valuable. Though, legimitely, you can ask the question whether that makes them more valuable or simply valuable per se. It might sound a bit 'snobbish', but as I myself can't lay any claims to such arms, my observation is at least only 'objectively snobbish'.

I agree with you that the style of arms anyone wishes to display and use is up to them, as well as the arms themselves conform to the rules of heraldry (where applicable) and are legimitely theirs to inherit, claim or assume.

Best wishes, Jay

I note some typos and confusing word choices in my response(s) too. Hope you won't mind too much. Jay