Aren't the descendants of the grantee also entitled to use the Coat of Arms? Robert Laird wrote: > > Patricia -- > > > > >Robert here are my comments regarding the statement "Now to further > >invalidate the Laird "crest". " > > > <snip> > >does not take away the fact that a coat of arms was granted. > <snip> > > One of the misconceptions that was always posed in the coat of arms > >debates, was that the Laird Family Association, and the Laird's on this > list > >were trying to claim the "right" to the Coat of Arms, as their family > crest. > >As all of you know, this statement is not true. No one on this list ever > >claimed that the Coat of Arms was a family crest belonging to everyone who > >has the Laird name in their ancestry. Anyone who knows anything at all > about > >genealogy or Heraldry, knows that a Coat > >of Arms is granted to the bearer, and only he has the right to the Coat of > >Arms. > > I think that it's possible that SOME people, somewhere in the world may > think that the displayed "Laird" coat-of-arms is representative of and > can be used by anyone with the last name Laird. Consequently, it's probably > appropriate on the web site -- which is available to anyone in the world > on the Internet -- to remind them that only the grantee of the coat-of-arms > has the rights to it. If you would like to help me rephrase my lead-in, > I'd be more than happy to make the changes. > > I think what Iain has revealed is terrific! > > -- Robert > > ------------------------------------------------ > mailto:rlaird@cavediver.com > http://www.concentric.net/~rlaird/ > Work phone: 713-260-6586 > ------------------------------------------------ > > There is an exception to every rule! ... er, > except this one... > > ==== LAIRD Mailing List ==== > Laird Resource Page: > http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/l/a/LAIRD/