Whilst agreeing with most of what Chris says with regards to every legitimate child being entitled to bear their father's Arms (even females) under English rules, it should be pointed out that the College of Arms web page contains a very basic interpretation of the rules of heraldry which in some cases it gets wrong. Arthur Charles Fox-Davies in his Complete Guide to Heraldry gives a rather more accurate statement with regards to Arms when he states.- "Every landowner was at one time required to have his seal - presumably, of arms - and as a result arms were naturally then considered to possess something of a territorial character. I do not by this mean to say that the arms belonged to the land and were transferable with the sale and purchase thereof. There never was in this country a period at which such an idea held; nor were arms originally entirely personal or individual. They belonged rather to a position half-way between the two. They were the arms of a given family, originating because that family held land and accepted the consequent responsibilities thereto belonging, but the arms appertained for the time being to the member of that family who owned the land. ..." Labels which are a mark of cadency may be shown to extend back into the 13th century therefore it is wrong to claim "Cadency marks _may_ be used to identify the arms of brothers, in a system said to have been invented by John Writhe, Garter, in about 1500." The use of a mark of cadency under the English system is voluntary not compulsory and is a matter of courtesy. Cheers Guy Chris Phillips wrote: > I wrote: > >>>which normally allow transmission only through the male line. The arms of > > a > >>>man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their > > order > >>>of birth. ... > > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > >>But not undifferenced ... > > > [and elsewhere] > >>Undifferenced arms > > only descend to the male heir anyway. The rest would have to use arms > with a device on them (in the case of Westenra, a crescent, and a > different motto) > > Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks > isn't compulsory. (The motto isn't part of the coat of arms, and is neither > here nor there.) > > If you look at the College of Arms web page I referred to you'll see that > the part I quoted previously ("The arms of a > man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their order > of birth") is immediately followed by this: > > "Cadency marks _may_ be used to identify the arms of brothers, in a system > said to have been invented by John > Writhe, Garter, in about 1500." > [my emphasis] > > Chris Phillips > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > -- http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells Transcripts, Parish Records, Calendar, Scaleable Map of Uk. Link to LDS website, Abbreviations, Returns of Owners of Lands etc. http://www.framland.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.