Eve McLaughlin wrote: > no such thing as a generalised 'family crest'. A crest is the device > above the helmet attached to a shield containing a coat of arms. There > are coats of arms issued to a particular person, by the College of > Arms, which descend to the eldest son of that person. I'm afraid this erroneous view is so deeply ingrained in family history circles that I despair of it ever being uprooted. Of course it's true that coats of arms don't belong to surnames, but particular families. But for the rest, to quote the website of the College of Arms: "The descent of arms in England and Wales is determined by the laws of arms, 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. ... Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs. A woman with no surviving brothers, or whose deceased brothers have no surviving issue, is an heraldic heiress. ... A woman may bear arms by inheritance from her father or by grant to herself. ... When unmarried, she displays her arms on a lozenge (a diamond shape) or an oval. ... When married, a woman may unite her arms with those of her husband in what are called marital arms; their arms are impaled, meaning placed side by side in the same shield, with those of the man on the dexter and those of his wife on the sinister. ... If the woman is an heraldic heiress, her arms are shown on an inescutcheon of pretence (a small shield) in the centre of her husband's arms. When widowed, a woman continues to use her marital arms, but placed on a lozenge or oval." http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/12.htm Chris Phillips

A very good morning or afternoon as the case may be, to all - I like women to bear arms - it shows whether she is used to washing up or not! Apologies for the pun - but I really had to you know, because the English language is such a strange beast at times. Imagine a foreigner reading Chris' very succinct description of the current subject which I am sure that we all understand quite clearly. Our students were very puzzled that women should have to put their arms in the center of her husband's -! Kind Regards June & Roy (SANHS Member No 1066) http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:20 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] question Doctors Commons Eve McLaughlin wrote: > no such thing as a generalised 'family crest'. A crest is the device > above the helmet attached to a shield containing a coat of arms. > There are coats of arms issued to a particular person, by the College > of Arms, which descend to the eldest son of that person. I'm afraid this erroneous view is so deeply ingrained in family history circles that I despair of it ever being uprooted. Of course it's true that coats of arms don't belong to surnames, but particular families. But for the rest, to quote the website of the College of Arms: "The descent of arms in England and Wales is determined by the laws of arms, 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. ... Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs. A woman with no surviving brothers, or whose deceased brothers have no surviving issue, is an heraldic heiress. ... A woman may bear arms by inheritance from her father or by grant to herself. ... When unmarried, she displays her arms on a lozenge (a diamond shape) or an oval. ... When married, a woman may unite her arms with those of her husband in what are called marital arms; their arms are impaled, meaning placed side by side in the same shield, with those of the man on the dexter and those of his wife on the sinister. ... If the woman is an heraldic heiress, her arms are shown on an inescutcheon of pretence (a small shield) in the centre of her husband's arms. When widowed, a woman continues to use her marital arms, but placed on a lozenge or oval." http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/12.htm Chris Phillips ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

In message <003801c46ab1$88481ec0$8a2186d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> no such thing as a generalised 'family crest'. A crest is the device >> above the helmet attached to a shield containing a coat of arms. There >> are coats of arms issued to a particular person, by the College of >> Arms, which descend to the eldest son of that person. > >I'm afraid this erroneous view is so deeply ingrained in family history >circles that I despair of it ever being uprooted. mainly because it is nor erroneous. You have misunbderstood the statement. > >Of course it's true that coats of arms don't belong to surnames, but >particular families. Not families, persons. The grant of arms to one brother does not entitled his brothers or cousins to use it, only his male descendants, while they exist. The rest of the quotation has apparently not been properly understood and does not apply in this case. 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) >ling List ==== >OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society