In message <004a01c46e29$129cd8c0$ba2c86d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes > >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. > 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. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

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 only to the eldest son, which - as has been shown - was incorrect. Chris Phillips