In a message dated 9/14/2006 3:38:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, irl-clare-request@rootsweb.com writes: Actually, I wanted to interject a question about my family's arms, if I may. In my family, the Foleys of Clare, the tendency for describing the arms usually involves not nearly as technical terms as you, Mike and Padraig, have been using. In my mother's generation, for instance, the arms are considered flabby but tanned, like a turkey's waddle, if I may. Then, going back another generation, the arms were much more descriptive of the Foley's social class at that time: muscular and lean. So my question is: what could be more important on a genealogy list than a really spirited discussion of Irish arms? Insincerely, Jeanne ============= Jeanne: Whether your comments are really "insincere" or not I think they are valid, so I hope nobody is offended if I jump in here. You may be aware that MacLysaght, a librarian by training, not a genealogist or heraldist, does not show armorial bearings (a more proper term which cannot be confused with firearms, which we in the USA still possess by natural right and constitutional guarantee) for any of the several FOLEY families in Ireland. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with designing or keeping a coat-of-arms used for some generations in your family. Find a good heraldic artist to do the work and be proud of it. If you're an American, have it copyrighted or registered as a trademark. Fees are very modest compared with the huge amounts (thousands of US dollars!) now being asked by the Chief Herald which would give you essentially the same thing as a new grant, without even a confirmation of any pre-existing noble arms. You should remember that coats-of-arms, like Irish chiefly titles, descend normally through the male line (sorry ladies!) as they are the identification banners of warriors - very few females among those. I must wonder if it is the modern false egalitarian sentiment that arouses such animosity on this otherwise simple subject! Of course, on a genealogical chart or other document you can display the arms of any ancestor having a right to arms. As for the character of the charges (depictions) in a coat-of-arms there is no dogmatic format. The choice of appearance is yours. Historically, armorial bearings convey an impression of strength and seriousness, sometimes also of royal and sacred symbolism. Most heraldists understand this. For example, I instructed my heraldic artists that the three sacred salmon in my coat-of-arms (Confirmed as a differenced version of the arms of OCathain of Ulster, via Co. Clare) be depicted as "fierce", rather than as the flabby, couch-potato fish shown in most popular reference books. He knew exactly what I meant. I must take issue with remarks claiming that others on this list have more important things to discuss. This is a list of Co. Clare genealogy, which is inseparable from Co. Clare heraldry. Many Clare families from whom I and many of you are descended were of ancient Irish noble origins, if not in the male line then certainly among their 1024 ancestors a mere ten generations ago. Some may not wish to pursue the "noble thing", but that's their hard luck in my opinion, and I hope they are successful in their research among the "peasants" and "sheep stealers" whom they seem so anxious to claim! Actually these references are repetitions of centuries of English propaganda. Queen Elizabeth I summed up her view of the Irish as "All Irish are bastards" - meaning they refused to marry in the Church of England, thus not married at all! Irish nobility has lasted at least 2500 years through direct male lines which can now be sorted out through Y-DNA testing. There have been some surprises, but we are interested in real history, not fantasy. Heraldry plays an important part in the total picture. The O'Cahan