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...