This came in on my Evans list. I thought it was very helpful. We had been discussing coats of arms. The author said he would consult with anyone who wanted to ask any questions or discuss this with him... off list since he isn't a member of [email protected] Let me know if you need his email address R ps I've been posting some 1930 census records to the web site... as I have time to do this. --------- I'm new to this list, so I'm not sure this is the right subject to comment on. But heraldry is a hobby of mine, and I think I can provide some clear answers on this subject. First of all, strictly speaking there's no such thing as a "family" coat of arms. Arms belong to a single individual, called an armiger. They have to have been granted or (in the case of very old arms) confirmed by the sovereign. Arms are inherited by an armiger's sons, if any, but while he is alive, each son has to alter, or difference, those arms to show that he's not the head of household. When an armiger dies, only the eldest son receives those arms without a mark of difference; the other sons and all their descendants still have to difference their arms. Coats of arms are basically a special class of property in all those countries that grant or recognize them. Anyone who uses a coat of arms is necessarily claiming descent from the armiger to whom they were granted, and lawful title to whatever estate belongs to the holder of those arms. In other words, a person who uses the arms of the Duke of Norfolk is claiming to be the lawful Duke of Norfolk. For this reason, armigers are legally entitled to prevent anybody from using their arms without authority. Unless you can prove that you're descended from an armiger, you have no legal right to use his arms, in any form, with or without a mark of difference. Simply having the same surname as an armiger confers no right whatever to any coat of arms, because arms aren't granted to families, but to individuals. In the case of the Evans family, it's not even safe to suppose distant kinship with other families named Evans. Evans is a patronymic surname, which means that it's derived from the personal name of an ancestor, such as the English surnames Roberts, Williamson, or Thomas. Since Evan is and was a common Welsh name (it's the Welsh form of John), dozens or even hundreds of unrelated families might have adopted this surname during the period when hereditary surnames became usual in Wales. Until the latter half of the 15th Century, virtually all Welsh surnames changed with each generation (they were "true" patronymics, where one's surname was always the personal name of one's father). Hereditary surnames became the norm only very gradually. Most Welsh families used them by the 17th Century, but some still avoided them as late as the 19th Century. Richard Evans had an English personal name and used Evans as a hereditary surname. But there's no way to know how long his family had been called Evans unless you can prove who his parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents were. And without that, there's no way to know whether he's related to, much less descended from, any armiger by the name of Evans. It may well be that the arms described and illustrated by the author of this book have been used by several different families named Evans. But they could derive from a common ancestor, and without detailed family trees it might be impossible to determine with certainty which branch represents the head of the family. But there's no evidence to link Richard Evans to any of these families, or to any of the Evans families who bear different coats of arms, or to any other Evans family. Without that, you can't even say that the arms in the picture belonged to an ancestor, or any relative. In other words, there's no such thing as a coat of arms to which everybody named Evans is entitled. The only way that any descendant of Richard Evans would be entitled to these or any other arms associated with the name of Evans, is if he or she could prove that Richard was descended from another Evans who was entitled to bear those arms, and even then, they wouldn't be the same as in the picture, but differenced to show that he or she wasn't head of the entire Evans family. As a rule, the more distant the relationship, the less the arms would resemble the original grant. There are a lot of reasons why so many families believe that they are entitled to a "family crest," as coats of arms are often incorrectly described. One is that for generations, people have earned money by selling descriptions of noble families and drawings of their arms to other people who happen to share the same surnames. Another reason is because the rules governing heraldry aren't widely known. Most people aren't aware that there's no such thing as a "family" coat of arms. And many people assume that all families that bear the same surname are related. As for myself, I've yet to find a genuine connection to nobility, and while it would be nice to have one, I'm perfectly contented with the yeoman farmers who seem to have made up the majority of my ancestors. It's nice to imagine being descended from knights and princes, but most of us can never prove that, and there's no shame in admitting that none of your ancestors were of noble blood or were entitled to bear a coat of arms (as far as you know). Sorry if this message is disappointing to some of you. But think of it this way; is it better to know the truth of whom your ancestors were, or to believe that they were entirely different people, whom they themselves would not have recognized? For my part, I'll go with the truth every time! Paul A. ThornDescendant of Edward Evans of Monongalia County, Va.

Renee, Thanks for the information on heraldry. With companies selling "your family coat of arms", it is easy to see how so many people misunderstand the correct use of a coat of arms.  Thanks, Isabel