In message <000401c46e7f$814fa940$9c2586d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> which confirms what was stated - the grant is to a person, and if the >> person has no descendants, it does not then go to other members of his >> family unless they pay for a new grant. > >Just in case anyone is confused by this, what was stated was that the arms >passed > undifferenced > to the eldest son, Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of readers. Forget it, as I shall -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based > on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are > others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the > original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of > readers. Forget it, as I shall Yes, I agree, people must be getting very bored with this, and it will be my last message on the subject (barring any more genuine queries). However, I do think it's unfair to characterise the pursuit of accuracy in these matters - or genealogical matters in general - as "nitpicking". Of course, the point in question can be very important in practice when interpreting heraldic evidence. Just to be clear, I think the only error that has been _suggested_ in the College of Arms material is the claim about when the system of cadency marks was introduced. Doubt was cast on this because the label was in use some time earlier than the date suggested for the introduction of the system. I suspect the web page was referring to the "system" as a whole - label, crescent, mullet, martlet, annulet and so on - not to individual elements. Chris Phillips

> Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based > > on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are > > others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the > > original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of > > readers. Forget it, as I shall > With all respect to Eve: I cannot be alone in finding digressions of this sort often fascinating, and I would hate for them to be ruled out of order - or even discouraged. OE-List is much, much more interesting than the vast majority of similar Lists, and its nature is to be cherished, I think. I once belonged to a "History of English" List that became moribund purely because it discouraged all digressions. The infinitesimal marginal cost of downloading each extra posting is a price worth paying if it avoids such a fate. Eve: please relent! Gordon Barlow