On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Chris Branagan wrote: > > Help needed from the cousins. Am I totally off base? > > I've never taken the Whitney Coat of Arms seriously and can't even find > > it on the WRG site. I always thought that a Coat of Arms was for > > very old families with some link to royalty and that they could be > > changed anytime: the one issued recently for Prince William was a new > > one, sort of a combination of Charles' and Diana's. > > Anyway, I ran into someone who claims to have THE Whitney Coat of Arms > > and cannot be dissuaded. Is there evidence anywhere of what our Coat > > of Arms should look like? I'll do my best to explain this, but if I stray from what's factual, someone please correct me... A coat of arms is not given to all members of a surname - it is given to an individual. That coat of arms is then passed down unchanged to his eldest son. Other children take the original coat and modify it slightly, usually following a standard system of modifications. If we found an old house that was owned by a Mr. Whitney, but who was completely unrelated, would we be correct to claim it as our ancestral home? The same holds true of a coat of arms. Just because it was granted to someone named Whitney does not mean that it applies to everyone with that surname. Although this Whitney Research Group comprises many different Whitney branches, I am unaware of any members that have a direct link to an arms-bearing ancestor, let alone one through the eldest male line to the present day. We could put the various coats of arms held by men named Whitney through the ages on our web site, but we really can't claim them unless we can prove the connection. Also, there is no such thing as 'THE' Whitney coat of arms. Even if there was only one coat of arms that was ever granted to a man named Whitney, that does not mean that it applies to all Whitney descendants. I hope this helps, Tim Doyle

It is also my understanding that an individual's coat of arms is a merger of his mother's and his father's coats of arms. ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Doyle <tdoyle@just.doit.com> To: <WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [WHITNEY-L] Re: the coat of arms? > On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Chris Branagan wrote: > > > > Help needed from the cousins. Am I totally off base? > > > I've never taken the Whitney Coat of Arms seriously and can't even find > > > it on the WRG site. I always thought that a Coat of Arms was for > > > very old families with some link to royalty and that they could be > > > changed anytime: the one issued recently for Prince William was a new > > > one, sort of a combination of Charles' and Diana's. > > > Anyway, I ran into someone who claims to have THE Whitney Coat of Arms > > > and cannot be dissuaded. Is there evidence anywhere of what our Coat > > > of Arms should look like? > > I'll do my best to explain this, but if I stray from what's factual, > someone please correct me... > > A coat of arms is not given to all members of a surname - it is given to > an individual. That coat of arms is then passed down unchanged to his > eldest son. Other children take the original coat and modify it slightly, > usually following a standard system of modifications. If we found an old > house that was owned by a Mr. Whitney, but who was completely unrelated, > would we be correct to claim it as our ancestral home? The same holds true > of a coat of arms. Just because it was granted to someone named Whitney > does not mean that it applies to everyone with that surname. Although > this Whitney Research Group comprises many different Whitney branches, I > am unaware of any members that have a direct link to an arms-bearing > ancestor, let alone one through the eldest male line to the present day. > > We could put the various coats of arms held by men named Whitney through > the ages on our web site, but we really can't claim them unless we can > prove the connection. Also, there is no such thing as 'THE' Whitney coat > of arms. Even if there was only one coat of arms that was ever granted to > a man named Whitney, that does not mean that it applies to all Whitney > descendants. > > I hope this helps, > > Tim Doyle >