Boerboom coat of arms?

Question

ive been putting it in every search engine and cant find it anywhere, its a dutch surname, i just want a crest or coeat of arms, even a flag with the picture just so i can see it, it may be a sub-clan but i cant find it anywhere

Answer 1

There is no such thing as a family crest.

A crest is part of a coat of arms.

Coats of arms do not belong to surnames.

They were and are granted to individuals and are passed down through the direct male line of descent.  

There are many peddlers on the internet, at airports, at shopping malls, in magazines and soliciting by mail surname products like coats of arms.  There might have been, for instance, 15 different individuals with a particular surname, not all necessarily related, each granted their own coat of arms, all different.  The peddlers like House of Names will not have all 15. They don't need to in order to sell to gullible people.  

The only time they will have more than one is if persons with the same surname from different national origins were granted one.  In that case they will have one of each when in fact there might have been 3 of each.  

See the links below, one from the British College of Arms. They grant coats of arms and are the ultimate authority.  The other is from the most prestgious genealogical organization in the U.S., The National Genealogical Society.

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Faq.ht...

http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comconsumerp...

If this is a school project, print off the 2 links and give to your teacher. Also feel free to print off what I am posting here and give to your teacher.

Anytime you go into someone's home and see one of those walnut plaques on someone's den wall or over their fireplace with a coat of arms on it and their name underneath, they are just displaying one that was granted to someone with their surname and might not even be related.  

Now, if you are a student, and I apologize if you aren't, I will tell you what your parents would tell you.  You don't laugh at people in their own homes or make some ridiculing comment. That is not polite.  You have to understand we have a lot of students who are given assignments to find their coat of arms.   However, you can understand if you displayed one of those plaques or had a keychain or coffee mug with a coat of arms on it, anyone who knows anything about genealogy or heraldry will be amused. Thoughh to be polite, they will laugh only to themselves.

Answer 2

Did the surname have a different spelling and evolved over time?  Sometimes names get shortened or letters moved around for various reasons.  Good Luck in your search.

Answer 3

GenevievesMom has the most appropriate answer. Here is where you can view the Orange-Nassau Coat of arms. The "crest" is the royal crown on top. Boerboom means 'farmer tree' in English.

http://www.ngw.nl/ryks-en.htm

Answer 4

The Dutch were a very simple people. Not only did they not get involved in many military actions (hence not many knights in shining armour), but they were VERY late in the game at adopting formal surnames...like it was during the Napoleonic era just 200 years ago.

So you won't find a family coat of arms because it wasn't something of interest in their very agrarian, simple culture. The colors of the country belonged to the ruling family, which was predominantly the House of Orange during the time our ancestors immigrated, though in the south it was the House of Bourbon. Pick one of their coats of arms and display it with national pride, just the way your ancestors would. It would be akin to displaying the American flag today.

Here's a link to the order of knighthoods in the Netherlands. You'll notice no individual families, but many sources of tremendous pride that you can share. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Or...

Answer 5

Why would you assume that every name in the world HAS a crest/ coat of arms?

You won't find something that does not necessarily exist. You will find sites with family crests, and even find that those are not valid, except to the individual person to whom it was awarded.

Please.. you are expecting something unrealistic.

Answer 6

Hello Stef. Firstly a crest is a part of a coat of arms, it was used as a decoration on a helmet, and females never had the use of a crest. coats of arms were never anything to do with clans, they were granted to one man, from whom it passed down to his male heirs, this is basically true of all countries that have the tradition of Heraldry. You are not entitled to display a coat of arms unless you can prove, with documentation, that you have that entitlement. As an example here is what happened in England.

In the first instance the grant of arms was/is made to one individual and inherited by his descendants who alone may bear or use his arms, they were passed equally to each of his sons, each one added their own mark of cadency to those arms. The eldest son added a label – a horizontal strip with three pendant drops (during the lifetime of his father). The second son added a crescent, the third son added a five pointed star, the fourth son added a martlet, the fifth son added a annulet, the sixth a fleur de lys, the seventh a rose, the eighth a cross Moline and the ninth a double quatrefoil, which were then displayed on their shields to distinguish themselves from each other and their father, the sons passed their arms, complete with their own cadences, on to their own sons, who then added a second set of cadences to distinguish themselves from each other, their father, uncles and cousins.

When a man died, his eldest son then had the right to bear his father’s arms without the differentiation marks, the eldest son’s children would then add only one set of cadency marks, instead of two, and so on down the generations, the brothers of the eldest son continued to use the arms with their own cadency marks, which were later passed to their sons in the same manner, It all got very complicated.

Daughters also inherited the right to display their father’s arms if there was no male heir, a daughter could pass her father’s arms on to her sons. Wives, widows and daughters had a courtesy right to display their husband or father’s arms, normally on a diamond lozenge.

The original achievement remained the same through the generations, enhanced by the addition of the various cadences, however, the arms of more than one family could also be included on one shield. If both the man and his wife had the right to bear arms, they could be displayed side by side, called impalement, or if mixed together to form new arms, it was called compounding. One method was quartering, where the shield was divided into quarters, then, for example, if a man had no sons, his daughter or daughters inherited his right to the coat of arms, if one such daughter married a man who also had a coat of arms, her arms could be impaled with his, or be displayed on a

small shield in the centre of her husbands arms, their sons would then seek permission of the Heralds to bear arms, with their father’s arms in two quarters and their mother’s

in the other two quarters. With time the coat of arms could include the arms of many families and became very complex.

Dating originally from before the advent of surnames, the arms were in effect a means of identification, much the same as a surname. With the establishment of surnames during the 12th. And 13th. centuries, those families who already had the right to bear arms acquired a surname to go with their arms, once surnames were established and became hereditary, new arms were granted to men with an established surname, so it can, I think, be argued as to whether or not arms are attached to a family, or the family surname.

Neither were they (or surnames) introduced by the Normans for taxation purposes. The Normans arrived in England some 100 or more years before the first heraldic arms or devices began to appear.

Heraldry in Europe developed and evolved during the 12th.and 13th. centuries (1100-1200) Heraldic arms were a personal device, possibly for military purposes, or simply a display of status or vanity, it can only be guessed at because, today, no one knows the real reason. At first, arms were displayed without authority from anyone, but gradually became controlled by the Crown, through Heralds, whereby, men who could prove their ancient use of arms by their family, were granted permission to continue displaying them. Total control finally came about in the 15th.century, when Richard III

in 1484, established what is now known as the College of Arms, it still holds the

authority to grant or withhold the use and display of arms.

A crest was normally an ornament on a helmet and it was included within the family’s achievement (coat of arms) but later became used separately, as decoration on plate and cutlery, stationery etc.

If it is possible to access a copy of Burke’s “General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales” first published in 1842, you can find out if any particular family was ever granted the right to bear arms. It is unfortunately a fact that very, very few people, other than extremely well documented lines of royalty, nobility, gentry or maybe wealthy landowners, traders or other persons of note, can prove a satisfactory link back to that period. Generally, if a family is entitled to display arms, they are most probably still aware of the fact, it is not something usually “forgotten”. Today there are two types of arms, “granted arms”, which are formally conveyed by a sovereign, state, or other body with the authority to do so, these grants have legal status under the law wherever they are recognised. And there are “assumed arms”, which can be designed and used by anyone but carry no legitimacy.

Other countries have a broadly similar history of Heraldic rules and regulatory authorities.

Sources :-

Among others.

The College of Arms

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/...

And the book by T.Woodcock & J.M.Robinson

"The Oxford Guide to Heraldry".

OFFICIAL DUTCH HERALDIC GENEALOGY :-

Central Bureau voor Genealogie,

PO box 11755, NL 2502

AT DEN HAAG

THE NETHERLANDS

http://www.cbg.nl/  

(When the page opens click on the green 'English' tab on the right)

Answer 7

Wendy and Shirley are right.

Chances are, you do not have a Coat of Arms.  Coat of Arms were granted to INDIVIDUALS, not assigned to surnames. Just because someone of your last name MAY have been granted one at some point does not make it yours.  Also, it may be that several men of the same surname were granted a coat of arms....each one different.....and maybe none of the men were related to each other.  Likewise, it may be that NO ONE of your surname was ever granted one.  In order for you to be able to claim any Coat of Arms you must be able to do the following:

1. research your family tree to see if you have any ancestors that were granted a Coat of Arms.

2. If you do have an ancestor who was granted one, then you can only claim it IF the following is true: The person who rightfully can claim a Coat of Arms that was granted to their ancestor is a male descendant who is the first born son, of the first born son, of the first born son, of the first born son, etc., all the way back to the person who was originally granted the Coat of Arms. If you do not fall in that line, then you cannot claim it.  If you do fall in that line, then chances are you are already aware you have one.

To use a Coat of Arms based on your last name is meaningless.  It is about as accurate as buying a picture frame at the store that has a piece of paper in it showing an image of a child holding a flower and claiming that is actually a picture of your child.

Answer 8

Probably derived from Boer

Link to Boer family crest

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/Or...