John, This whole issue of coats of arms is very complex and confusing, and pretty tedious as well. You are exactly correct in stating that coats of arms were not granted to a surname but only to individuals. However, once arms were granted to an individual, they became hereditary for all his legitimate male descendants, as an ancestral right. This distinction is made clear at the website you cite for the College of Arms (first FAQ): "Coats of arms belong to individuals. For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past." Using Sir John Pate as an example, he and his brothers inherited arms from their father Henry. His father had inherited his arms from his own father Edward. We may never know, but it appears likely that the origin of this coat of arms dates back at least to Sir John's greatgrandfather Edward. This family of Pate men had been associated with several kings in the Henry line, being awarded houses and lands by the king. Apparently the king had granted arms to one of these men due to his courage in battle or for his loyalty. Sir John had no surviving male heirs, but his daughters, through the laws of heraldry, were able to pass their Pate arms to their sons (see escutheon of pretense) through quartering. Sir John's brothers and uncles could continue passing the inherited arms to their male Pate descendants. I attempted to make this as clear as possible, with some detail, in my recent paper on Sir John Pate in the section titled "The Pate coat of arms". The following excerpt is from that paper: "Technically, if we were still subjects of England, which continues to regulate the use of arms, none of us would have any right to use those arms, unless we could prove we were direct [male Pate] descendants of a brother or paternal uncle of Sir John Pate." As I also pointed out in that paper, there are at least two other Pate coats of arms completely different from that of the Pate's of Sysonby/Kettleby. These will be discussed in another paper I plan to write sometime in the future. I have not done any research on Scottish arms. A. J. Pate ________________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:30:50 -0400 From: "John Robinson" <[email protected]> Subject: [PATE] British Coat of Arms This issue comes up from time to time and I provide the link to the British College of Arms. This is the government website that governs Arms. http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ Arms are not granted to Families, but to individuals. As such, there is NO Pate Family Coat of Arms.