In reply to Gold's message ..... The family Coat of Arms is not restricted to the eldest son and his direct line of eldest sons.. As I understand the system, there are subtle changes which are made for the second and third son and so on. The eldest son of the second son then inherits the second son's CoA with that original subtle change, but no further change. However, while the original shield is unchanged for the line of eldest sons, even the eldest son has a variation which he can use while his father is still alive and therefore while the father is using the original family Crest in his own right. The other variation is that as the armigerous families intermarry, the crest of the wife's family is introduced into that of their eldest son, so that you get crests made up of two or more distinctive family shields. The sale of these CoAs in shopping malls is in no way restricted to outside the UK and colonies. You can find them all over the UK and in Australia. They have no doubt found a way around being sued by the College of Arms or the original owning family by making more minor changes. They thereby avoid being hung, drawn and quartered at the Tower or more appropriately in a Wade case, being put on the rack at the Tower like our forebear did with Guy Fawkes and no doubt other less well known traitors and heretics. Speaking from experience though, it is very frustrating to see someone trying to nick off with one's own! This is certainly a very complex area but somewhat out of place today. Unfortunately, The College of Arms appears to be struggling to find a role in this environment, based on my conversations with their representatives a year ago in London. Robert Wade ----- Original Message ----- From: Gold <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:25 AM Subject: [WADE-L] College of Arms > > Please note > > There must have been some sort of misunderstanding. The College of Arms > does NOT allow visitors to their facility according to Mr. Dickinson; I > asked if they did. It would be quite unusual for them to say that no one > can have a copy except the person who owns it. These are published in so > many different publications! And, colored copies, too. The College of Arms > probably meant that no one can "use" it unless they own it, which is true. > I cannot claim the 17th century coat of arms because I am not the person who > originally owned it, nor am I the first born son of the first born son of > the ... > > The only way someone other than the original owner can use a coat of arms, > is if they are a direct male descendent through all oldest sons. It follows > a specific pattern. Anyone else using it in England, or in an English > colony can be charged with something (I'm not sure just what!). We, here in > America, however, can do anything we want with them because we do not > recognize the English laws (you see people in malls selling shields with > coats of arms on them), although those who respect the coat of arms would be > more respectful than that. > > More can be read on how the College of Arms handles things, either at their > web site or through several books on "Heraldic Devices" at the local > library. I've read Oxford's Guide to Heraldic Devices and several other > books. > > > > > ==== WADE Mailing List ==== > If you need help you can contact me "listowner" at this address > mailto:[email protected] >