Hello Chris We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d 1842) who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. He never married and had no children but I found that whether right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. regards Chris Bartlett > > I wrote: > > >Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency > marks > > >isn't compulsory. > > Eve McLaughlin replied > > But Ulster King of Arms made sure that Westenra had the crescent > > incorporated to show his precise descent. Whatever the theory, in > > practice this is normally done. (why pass up a fee for issuing arms, by > > letting all and sundry in the family use the same coat>: Money talks.) > > The last remark really has me foxed. Presumably no one is going to claim > that the College of Arms requires younger sons to pay them for > fresh grants > of arms, incorporating cadency marks? > > Chris Phillips

Chris Bartlett wrote: > We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d > 1842) > who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a > coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. > He never married and had no children but I found that whether > right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. > > A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I > understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite > a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. I suppose that in that case a second grant would have been necessary, as the original grantee died unmarried. Chris Phillips