Heraldic law

The Purpose of Heraldic Law

Within heraldry, heraldic law is the discipline that deals with the right to bear arms and the circumstances under which coats of arms may be used. It was established in the 13th century by the first heraldists, who were themselves jurists. Heraldic law was first discussed comprehensively by Felix Hauptmann (Das Wappenrecht, Bern, 1897).

Heraldic law developed during the period of “living heraldry,” but it was based more on customary law than on written statutes. The rules of heraldic law fall into two groups. The first group determines who is entitled to bear arms and is therefore of a public-law nature. The second group concerns the definition of heraldic rights, the relationship of individuals to their coats of arms, the modes and proof of acquiring the right to bear arms, and the loss of that right; these belong to the sphere of private law.

Legal Bases for the Use of Coats of Arms

The right to use a coat of arms may rest on two legal bases:

  • one’s own right or noble right, and

  • royal privilege.

By virtue of their own right, coats of arms could be borne by those natural and legal persons who were entitled to do so by their public-law status:

  • noble families,

  • countries,

  • cities,

  • counties,

  • high-ranking ecclesiastics.

By royal privilege, ecclesiastical and secular orders:

  • those burgher families and associations to whom the sovereign granted the right to bear arms as a special favor, even though their public-law status did not entitle them to it;

  • those noble families to whom the ruler granted a coat of arms.

The Nature of Heraldic Law

The entitlement to bear arms is of a private-law nature and generally means only that the armiger possesses a specific coat of arms as his own. Rights attach only to that particular coat of arms, not to any arbitrary one or to one to which another already has rights. A person may have the right to use several coats of arms, and the nature of these rights may differ. One may be used as one’s own, the others as foreign arms. A personal coat of arms is one used as a family emblem; a foreign coat of arms is one used for another reason—for example, a national coat of arms, the arms of an order, or a claim (pretension) coat of arms.

In the marshaling or combination of coats of arms, this heraldic-legal distinction is reflected in the order of the armorial elements and types. In such cases, consideration must be given to the nature of the arms being combined and to whether they are of equal or differing significance or legal standing, and whether among them there are arms of rank or patronage, since arms of the same kind must not be separated and mixed with those of another kind. The more important coat of arms is entitled to the place of honor. In state arms, the order of the sovereign’s titles is decisive. The ruler’s family arms are placed on the inescutcheon, while arms of rank, patronage, and honor precede the family arms.

The right to a coat of arms does not pertain to possession of the physical embodiment of the arms, but rather to the right of its bearer to adorn his weapons with it and to wear it as a mark of identification and distinction. Thus, for example, someone may sell a helmet or shield bearing his coat of arms without thereby transferring the right to the arms themselves. Finally, one may have the right to bear arms even without possessing an actual coat of arms. The right to bear arms is therefore not a right to a thing, but a right to a right. Nevertheless, the right to a coat of arms was treated analogously to a right in rem. The legal order recognized that, just as with material objects, one could exercise dominion over a right. Such non-material possessions include a name and a coat of arms.

Acquisition of Coats of Arms

Initially, coats of arms were acquired by arbitrary assumption and later by princely grant. Although there was no law prohibiting arbitrary assumption, it was already regarded as impermissible at the time when our earliest letters patent (armorial grants) were issued. This is evident from the wording of these armorial letters, which state that “from the clear light of the imperial or royal throne and majesty, as from the rays of the sun, nobility proceeds by legitimate right, and all insignia of nobility depend upon imperial or royal majesty, so that no emblem of gentility can be given unless it proceeds from the bosom of imperial or royal dignity or splendor.”

Coats of arms could also be acquired by purchase or gift—and by adoption—but later, for such acquisitions to be legally valid, princely approval was also required. It appears that armigerous burgher families, through the use of their coats of arms, gradually and almost imperceptibly entered the ranks of the nobility. According to Werbőczy, however, a coat of arms did not prove nobility, nor was the presentation of a coat of arms necessary to prove noble status. Even in the 18th century, possession of a coat of arms was not considered sufficient proof of nobility, as shown by two royal decrees of 1732 (dated April 16 and October 11).

Measures to prevent the usurpation of coats of arms also fall within the scope of heraldic law. In this regard, laws were enacted abroad, but in Hungary this was neglected until 1883, and even the law of that year provided measures only against the usurpation of the national coat of arms. Nevertheless, the usurpation of arms was regarded as a punishable offense in Hungary as well. This is evidenced by the wording of King Sigismund’s armorial letter of 1416, which imposed a fine of ten gold marks on anyone who might usurp the coat of arms granted to the Jánoki and Zászi families.

In Hungary, cases of usurpation of arms rarely came before the courts. The Pribék family, for example, unlawfully used the coat of arms of the Nagymihályi family. This allegedly led to litigation, but it appears that, since there was no relevant statute, there was no legal basis for an injunction, and the Pribéks continued to use the disputed arms.

The History of Heraldic Law

At first, knights—and later burghers and peasants—freely assumed coats of arms and therefore did not possess princely charters for them. They bore their arms on the basis of tradition and customary law, accepted by both the community and the ruler. From the mid-14th century onward, rulers began to issue armorial and letters of nobility in charter form, authenticated with seals. This marked the emergence of granted arms.

The earliest known armorial grant was issued by King Louis the Great in 1369 to the city of Košice (Kassa). In a charter of 1327, King Charles I (Charles Robert) ordered that Master Dancs, ispán of Zólyom, might replace the silver elements of his coat of arms with gold and use them likewise in his crest and on his banner—but only if he joined the royal campaign.

He also ordered that if Master Dancs encountered any knight bearing a similar coat of arms, he was to take it away from him. Hungarian armorial letters also describe in detail where the granted families were permitted to display their coats of arms (at tournaments, on weapons, buildings, signet rings, tents, carriages, etc.).

Bartolo de Sassoferrato, followed by several jurists-turned-heraldists, held that princely approval was required for the lawful bearing of arms. Rulers recognized that issuing armorial letters could be a significant source of income for the court. Consequently, in several countries the granting of nobility and coats of arms became the task of the chanceries and heralds’ offices, further strengthening the legal conception of heraldry. In the 18th century, J. A. Philippi no longer regarded coats of arms as legal constructs but as products of cultural history.

He argued that “the use of coats of arms is not a manifestation of law, but of cultural history.” Previously, for centuries, coats of arms had been considered part of the legal domain. By the late 19th century, within the Monarchy (especially in Austria), various heraldic enterprises were engaged in the commercial sale of burgher coats of arms.

Such practices still exist today in Western Europe and America, where, based on name identity, coats of arms are dishonestly sold for money to interested parties. In some places, even coat-of-arms vending machines have appeared, which, after entering a name and inserting money, dispense a “coat of arms” like any other commodity.

In the United States of America, anyone may freely create and use a coat of arms. Such assumed arms are known in English as arms of assumption.

Heraldic Law in Hungary

In Hungary, a cult of coats of arms never developed to the same extent as in the West. According to István Werbőczy, coats of arms have no legal significance; they are not requisites but merely ornaments of nobility.

In Hungary, the use of noble (titles and) coats of arms was prohibited by Act IV of 1947, Section 3(2) (still in force): “The use of noble predicates, noble coats of arms and insignia, or expressions referring to noble lineage (de genere) is prohibited.” However, the law provides no sanctions; thus, although the use of coats of arms is de jure prohibited, de facto there is neither an obstacle nor a legal consequence.

Burgher Family Coats of Arms in Hungary

In Hungary, among burgher families, only those of German origin bore coats of arms, which they brought with them from their homelands. This was a relatively uncommon practice, as few families possessed sufficient prestige and financial means to maintain their own coat of arms. Very little evidence of their use has survived. Among others, the arms of the burgher families Spielmann, Prückler, Lenz, and Topits have been preserved.

For example, József Prückler (1778–1848), a master baker and elected burgher of Pest from the Prückler family, which originated in Schwarzenbach, was among those who used his family’s armorial wax seal. The shield bore a wooden vessel (budunka), and the crest consisted of the same figure between two black eagle wings. There was no crown on the helmet, as this was a privilege reserved for noble arms. Later, his sons used simple monogrammed wax seals.

Another example can be found in the Buda Castle District, on Úri Street. As early as 1570, the burgher coat of arms of the family of Hedwig Spielmann (1858–?), wife of Jánosné Asbóth, appeared; it once adorned the façade of their house alongside her husband’s coat of arms.