>Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks >isn't compulsory. 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.) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

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