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