INTRODUCTION

IRISH HERALDRY

SEPT ARMS and ARMS of CHIEFTAINSHIP

ARMS TODAY

In 1552 the office of "Ulster, King of Arms" was instituted in Ireland to regulate the use of heraldic arms. The Ulster Office was "an artificial creation and not the product of any indigenous evolution." It was established solely to further the policy of Anglicization and "Surrender and Regrant." There was no other local need or demand for this office, since the English authority did not extend beyond the Pale and the Gaelic Irish controlled most of Ireland.

The Ulster King of Arms was an extension of the English College of Arms and English Heraldry (MacCarthy Mor, 1996). English heraldry was predicated on primogeniture. Of course this was in direct conflict with the Gaelic Irish concepts of multilateral inheritance within the kin group. More importantly, the idea that only the Crown could grant or confirm the right to bear arms was based on the feudal concept that the English King was the source of all authority and honor.

Acceptance of the authority of the Ulster Office indicated a willingness to accept the authority of the Crown. All this was contrary to Gaelic Irish custom. "... Before the seventeenth century, nobility in Gaelic Ireland was defined in genealogical rather than heraldic terms. The concept that nobility could be acquired from an office in Dublin by petitioning for the right to paint a geometric or natural device on a wooden, leather, or metal shield would have appeared shockingly perverse to an aristocracy that regarded pedigree alone as the determinant of social status. Not only was the individual's rank within his Sept determined by his genealogy, but his rights to property and his eligibility of succession to the Chieftainship of his Name" (MacCarthy Mor, 1996). 

Anthropology instructs us that whenever two cultures are in close contact there is usually a lot of borrowing back and forth. Typically each culture will pick and choose those items from the adjacent culture which it finds useful. The fact that some of the Old English became "more Irish than the Irish" is well documented. Conversely, many of the Irish living in the Pale were highly anglicized. The rest of the island was probably something of a patchwork with significant local differences. No doubt there was a lot of cultural borrowing. 

The rate at which Gaelic Irish adopted English-style heraldic practices was probably directly related to the amount and type of interaction which they had with the colonists. In other words, the acceptance of English-style heraldry was a marker for the rate of Anglicization. At the same time, as these more or less anglicized Irish began using symbols for arms, seals, etc., it would only have been natural for them to incorporate the ancient territory or clan symbols or totems. 

Conversely, the more Gaelic they were, the less likely they were to adopt English customs. The least anglicized Irish probably took pride in NOT using any of the English customs. However this may not necessarily hold for heraldry in the military sense. This is because the Irish nobility was a warrior aristocracy. Their record of adopting and adapting Anglo-Norman military innovations is something of a mixed bag. They adopted certain types of armor fairly quickly. On the other hand, they were extremely conservative in their style of horseback riding. The high degree of elitism and prestige associated with heraldry may have been attractive to the Gaelic nobility. They were extremely elitist. 

"From the surviving evidence is clear that whilst the great provincial dynasties and major lords were assuming arms from the late fourteenth century onwards, their minor vassals were still largely unarmigerous at the foundation of Ulster's Office and possibly remained so as late as the mid-seventeenth century.

 There was a reluctance on the part of the Gaelic gentry to abandon their own cultural definition of nobility, which rested on extreme antiquity of descent, in favor of accepting the possibility that a 'mere churl' who did not know his own grandfather's name could be ennobled by paying Ulster King of Arms for a painted certificate!" (MacCarthy Mor, 1996).

> continued next column

The importance of regulating heraldry and the power of the King of Arms increased tremendously.⁶ And, because of the increasing relationship between heraldry and status, the rules governing heraldic display became more and more arcane. 

Quartering, placing the arms of more than one family on the same shield, became highly popular for the status conscious. In extreme cases this led to unattractive and extremely busy shields which were crammed with multiple charges and devices. Although these highly complex arms may have indicated high status, they would have been pretty useless for identification on the battlefield. 

"An examination of the heraldic records of Ulster's Office for the period 1552-1620, whether in the form of Visitations, Funeral Entries or general armorials, fails to reveal any substantial interest in heraldry among the Gaelic gentry..." 

The majority of the Gaelic Irish nobility did not become anglicized until the collapse of the Gaelic society in the 1600s. However, once confronted by the defeat of their culture, they began to attempt to assimilate by taking on English customs, dress, customs and heraldry.

"Between 1630 and the early 1640s there was an increase in the number of arms of Gaelic families being recorded in the Office, mainly in the form of Funeral Entries." This was probably the result of the remaining Gaelic nobility beginning to assert their noble status in an anglicized fashion which was acceptable to the new English elite. The Gaelic Irish probably just began to use "shield-centered" heraldic versions of the clan's symbols or chieftain's symbols used previously on banners and battle flags. It is doubtful that they asked their erstwhile English enemies for permission. "Native Irish families that had formed part of the Gaelic aristocracy were unlikely to apply to Ulster for a grant of arms when such application would have been derogatory to their existing nobiliary status" (MacCarthy Mor, 1996) 

"By the mid-seventeenth century a large number of gentry families of Gaelic origin were either bearing arms or were familiar with heraldry. Richard Carney, 'Principal Herald' (1651-1660) during the protectorate, compiled an armorial containing literally hundreds of coats of arms that he ascribed to Gaelic families. Strictly speaking, Carney should not have recorded these arms at all unless they were either already known to the Office or had been in use by the families concerned for upwards of eighty years" (MacCarthy Mor, 1996). 

From the surviving records it is impossible to know what criteria Carney applied to the arms he documented. However, assuming from his name that he was of Gaelic Irish descent, it is possible he was sympathetic to the old Gaelic customs. Certainly he may have had access to other records or previous compilations of arms which have not survived. At any rate, this seems to be the period when most of the Gaelic Irish arms were formally recorded by the authorities. 

Why were the Gaelic Irish so suddenly interested in Heraldry at this time? Why the sudden increase of arms recorded by the Principal Herald? By the 1650s it must have become obvious to even the slowest learner that the Gaelic Order was a thing of the past. The New English used Heraldry as a way of distinguishing the nobility. The Gaelic Irish elite would have been pushed into doing the same, if they wanted to distinguish themselves from the peasantry and demonstrate their status. And, as they looked around for symbols, what could be more natural than to use the ancient clan devices. 

Most of the arms recorded at this time seem to have been "sept arms" or "arms of chieftainship." In other words, they don't appear to be the private property of a particular individual but belonged to either the sept as a whole or to the chief, possibly as symbol of his office. 

The evidence for this is that the arms were "undifferenced." (Differencing was the practice of changing a color or adding some symbol to the family arms to personalize it and thereby distinguish it from your father's, grandfather's, brother's, etc. In English heraldry there were fairly elaborate rules about how a cadet line was to do this.) 

In Gaelic Irish custom, the chieftainship would not necessarily pass to the eldest son in primogeniture, but to the most qualified family member, who might be a younger son, a brother, a cousin, etc., of the same name. Presumably, the arms could or would be passed along in the same way.

The fact that these Gaelic Irish arms did not show "differencing" seems to indicate that all members of these Gaelic ruling families may have felt that they had an right equal ownership or use of the arms (which may have, after all, incorporated their ancient clan symbols). 

Certainly this attitude of ownership would be consistent with their attitude that all prominent family members had an equal right to succeed to the chieftainship. Another alternative interpretation is that the arms, especially if they were based on ancient clan symbols, were already common to all members of the clan or sept. Or maybe they were common to all the members of the ruling elite of the sept (on a practical basis, the more humble relations would have little use for them anyway). 

It seems unlikely that the arms were the personal property of the chief and that other family members, some of them fairly distant cousins, could just assume the arms of the chief without consequences. Because the ownership of arms was so important to status, the Chief would have objected. Such an inappropriate assumption of arms would have amounted to a direct attack on his status and prerogatives. 

> continued next column

Irish warriors in the 16th century
commonly carried distinctive ring-hilt swords

Like any aristocrat, a Chief could be expected to be very touchy about these things. And there was even an office, Ulster King of Arms, for the Chief to appeal to. Significantly, this does not seem to be just the case of just a single chief allowing a liberal viewpoint with a handful of close relatives within his sept. There seem to have been hundreds of individuals claiming the right to arms at this time. 

It seems highly possible that either: (1) the arms had already been in use by these people for some time, so it was too late for the Chief to complain, or (2) the arms did not personally belong to the Chief, so he had no reason to complain, or (3) the arms were so obviously based on the ancient clan symbol that there could be no realistic objection. 

There maybe another possibility. Maybe the Gaelic Irish gentry held the English heraldic system in such low esteem that nobody much cared or objected to anyone using any arms he wanted. Whatever was happening here, certainly there must some kind of peer pressure or peer acceptance working in the Gaelic community at this time.

 The very idea of clan or sept arms would be a challenge to the English system of heraldry. There is no way around this conflict because it is based on a basically different views of inheritance - tanistry versus primogeniture. 

As heraldry became the main proof of nobility, all sorts of abuses worked their way into the system as social climbers and the newly rich tried to buy nobility by buying false genealogies that would qualify them for arms. O'Donovan tears apart a "genealogy" done by William Hawkins, Ulster King of Arms, categorizing the claims as "barefaced fabrications," "pure fabrication," "what a perversion of history is here!" "a most shameless fabrication," "shame upon such fabricators!" (O'Donovan, 1843).⁷

 > continued next column

There is a school of thought that claims that there is no such thing as Irish Heraldry, only English Heraldry as practiced in Ireland. There is more than a little truth in this. 

Ancient Gaelic culture included customs concerning using symbols or totems on battle flags and banners in a sort of proto-heraldry. There is evidence that certain of these symbols were common to specific regions or, clans, septs or other social groups. Whether or not they were ever viewed as the private property of any particular king or chief is not known. The Normans intruded themselves and their (still evolving) customs of heraldry into this cultural situation. The Anglo-Norman "conquest" of Ireland was very incomplete and resulted in a cultural patch-work. Over time, this patch-work constantly changed shape as each group attempted to assimilate the other. To complicate things further, there were always "New English" moving into Ireland as the "Old English" became Gaelicized. 

By about 1650 it was obvious that Gaelic Order was a thing of the past. The New English used Heraldry as a way of distinguishing the nobility. The Gaelic Irish elite would have to do the same, if they wanted to distinguish themselves and demonstrate their status. 

Now of course there was a problem in that the English custom of Heraldry had become bureaucratic. Arms had to be granted - they could no longer be assumed. Now (under the English system), nobility was conferred - it was no longer enough that one be the descendant of an ancient lineage. Now, the display of arms was proof of nobility - it was not enough to know one's genealogy going back a thousand years. This was cultural conquest pure and simple.

> continued next column

Today all this is academic. Only a handful of "chiefs of the name" remain in Ireland. Some of them actually claim their title by the English custom of primogeniture. Interesting idea: claiming a Gaelic title by right of an English law. The same English law which found Gaelic Irish customs anathema and which spent literally centuries trying to stamp them out. 

This brings us to today when anyone can find a "heraldic artist" on the internet or in a shopping mall to crank out his "coats of arms." So who has the right to display arms? Certainly those who are descended from the ancient nobility and who have inherited arms  

What about sept or clan arms? The first Chief Herald of Ireland, Dr. Edward MacLysaght was a bit ambivalent, although he believed in the concept of sept arms. It seem the question goes back to which system you subscribe to, English or Gaelic. By English custom, arms are personal property and are inherited via primogeniture. However, if you are a member of one of the ancient Gaelic lineages and if you choose to display the ancient clan symbols, who is to say that you are wrong? 

2...A shanachie was an Irish story teller. In this context, the term probably applies to the ancient Irish poets who were the historians of their time.

3...According to Fox-Davis (1929), "The term standard properly refers to the long tapering flag used in battle, and under which an overlord mustered his retainers in battle. This did not display his armorial bearings." The standard carried "all sorts of devices, usually the badges, and sometimes the crest." Often the standard also displayed the lord's motto. In English custom, flags which display personal arms are called "banners." Fox-Davis goes on to say that, "the armorial use of the banner in connection with the display of heraldic achievements is very limited in this country (England)."

4...Interestingly enough, the arms for the family named "Hand" shows a Rampant Blue Lion and a flesh-colored hand. This looks like a pun. The Irish word lamh=hand and, according to MacLysaght, at least some of the people known as Hand were originally O'Lavin (O'Lamhain). I conclude that this Hand family are actually O'Lavins and that the proper, original O'Lavin coat of arms is probably the about same as that of the Hands, but without the punning hand.

5...MacLysaght (the first Chief Herald of Ireland under the Republic and widely published authority on Irish families) has argued that, contrary to English heraldic practice, in Ireland a coat of arms can belong to the sept and not just one individual. Following his reasoning, it is proper for anyone who is truly a member of a sept to display the arms of the sept. Conversely, it is not appropriate for members of other septs, even if they carry the same surname, to use this coat of arms. MacLysaght is viewed as controversial by those whose who are proponents of English style heraldry and by those who possess a documented right to arms. The value of the elite privilege of displaying arms is certainly diminished by dilution via the widespread use of MacLysaght sanctioned arms.

6...Only in the eighteenth century, after the Cromwellian and Williamite conquests and confiscations had destroyed the Gaelic Irish and Old English nobility and replaced it with a Protestant ascendancy, was the Ulster Office able to firmly control heraldic matters.

7...John O'Donovan was the translator of the Annals of the Four Masters and the greatest Gaelic scholar of his age.

*

*

Ireland History in Maps is a most comprehensive site worth a visit.  The Ireland medieval map was taken from information here.