✦ Worldwide heraldry
Compare the actual systems.
A shared shield shape is not evidence of a shared rule. Compare what an institution does, what its record establishes, and which conclusions the evidence does not permit.
✦ Comparative method
Separate the bearer from the record.
A grant, a voluntary private registration, a government arms statute and a museum catalogue can all describe heraldry. They do not establish the same claims. Select two cases below, then follow their chapters and original source dossiers. These comparisons are teaching summaries, not legal advice or determinations of entitlement.
Read the national studies ↗| Question | Scotland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Institution and authority | Court of the Lord Lyon | National Archives for public arms; voluntary register for many private arms |
| Principal witnesses | Grants and matriculations in a continuing public register | Separate public-heraldry archive and non-governmental private register |
| What the records distinguish | A new grant and a descendant's matriculation are distinct acts | State and municipal records must not be confused with private armorial registration |
| What cannot safely be inferred | A surname or clan association is not an entry establishing particular arms | A voluntary private entry is not a universal governmental grant |
| Explore the evidence | National chapter · Source dossier | National chapter · Source dossier |
The table begins with Scotland and Sweden and updates locally when either selection changes. All sixteen case descriptions appear below so that the source paths remain available without JavaScript.
✦ Evidence index
Follow each case.
Every case links to a chapter and a specifically identified source-atlas dossier.
A new grant and a descendant's matriculation are distinct acts
A surname or clan association is not an entry establishing particular arms
State and municipal records must not be confused with private armorial registration
A voluntary private entry is not a universal governmental grant
A family Wappen and a municipal Stadtwappen have different bearers
A society's recording practice is not an English-style national grant monopoly
A Canadian grant and the registration of older arms are distinct transactions
A public register image is not automatically free to reproduce
Heraldic positions carry locally specific authority and resource references
A state emblem is not evidence of a national system for private-family grants
The head-ring, crest, shield and compartment have prescribed relationships
An asset directory is not unrestricted permission to use the state seal
Creation and later graphic standardization are different legal acts
The original law alone cannot establish all present visual details
The same shield has different prescribed surrounding presentations
Translating each legal term as one generic coat of arms erases a legal distinction
A historical New Granada reference survives within modern public imagery
A carving alone does not establish a current color standard or legal entitlement
Retaining an existing achievement is an identifiable institutional choice
Taíno depiction alone does not establish original Indigenous participation
A republican achievement can retain a crown as a historic form
A crown alone does not determine the current form of government
An actual museum object can inform a modern stylized emblem
Historical attribution and present official reuse are not identical evidence
Repeated regional eagle forms differ in color and composition
Visual likeness cannot prove direct descent from another state's arms
Historical image attribution must be separated from modern adoption
A museum object cannot establish unbroken continuity without intermediate records
A fully worked proposal is not yet an adopted public achievement
The existence of debate is not evidence that a proposed coat was enacted
Public and private armorial acts have different documentary pathways
A national emblem does not automatically govern every personal use of local symbols
Not every chapter describes an administrative system for granting private arms. Some cases concern public symbols alone; that absence of evidence must not be mistaken for a conclusion that no private heraldic tradition exists. Source links show what was consulted, not a completed review of every current instrument.