Does anyone know where I may be able to trace Middleton and Ripley coats of arms?

Question

My maiden name is Ripley and I would like to find out if there is a coat of arms for my family name. Also for my husbands name - Middleton. Would anyone know where I would be able to trace them - if anywhere?

I would be really grateful for your help.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Seraph is giving it to you straight.

Coats of arms do not belong to surnames.  They were and are granted to individuals and are passed down to the legitimate direct male line descendants.  By putting coats of arms or "familycrest," a misnomer for a coat of arms in your search engine you can come up with numerous peddlers selling them.  

Actually, there might have been, for instance, 15 different men with the same surname each granted their own coat of arms, all different.  No one peddler who sells them on the internet, at shopping malls, at airports, in magazines or solicit by mail will have all 15, no way.  They don't need to in order to sell to people.  The only time they will have more than one is if more than one person with the same surname from more than one national origin were granted a coat of arms.. In that case, they might have one of each when in fact there might have been several of each.

Now, it is possible if you do your family history you might find more than one in your family trees.  That does not mean you are entitled to any one of them.   If you are an American and you have any English ancestors in the early colonial days of the American South, you have a good chance of finding several in your family trees. What that means that after doing research you find more than one ancestor that were granted one and if you have a book printed or published on your family history, it is quite valid for you to put a picture of your ancestors' coats of arms in your book. It would not be valid, however, for you to put in your book a picture of those that just happened to be granted to someone with the same surnames as your ancestor.

Some in the South have the ones their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago and they aren't those little walnut plaques that people have on their den walls or over their fireplace.   As a rule, they dont display

them.  You can't buy any groceries with them and not only that, YOU CAN'T BUY GASOLINE WITH THEM.

Walmart won't take them either.

Answer 2

First you have to prove with documentary evidence that you are descended from a man who was granted arms, and then apply for permission to legally use them, the rules are very strict and can be upheld in the civil court of any country. Just because you share a surname with someone who was granted the right to arms does not mean that the right is also yours. The Heraldic tradition varies slightly between countries, but in essence they are all the same.

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”.

Answer 3

You most likely would find "Coats of Arms" online for both of the surnames you mention.  They will look nice on a wall, BUT, are they actually your family?

Years ago I bought one at a kiosk in Boston w/ my surname on it.  It looks great and talks about a variety of meanings for my surname - one of which is "Rabbi".  Sounds wonderful until you notice that the main animal is a boar - pigs aren't exactly kosher.:)

If you want one that is actually your family, the odds are slim.  Once you read the accompanying website, you will realize why.

We get this question at least a few times a day in this category.  So, you might want to check out what a family crest, coat of arms, etc. actually means historically.

  

"Coats of arms are not awarded to a family or a name, but to an individual. This is why there is no coat of arms or family crest for the family name "Hardin" -- only a coat of arms and crest granted to someone with that name many years ago. This is why there is often more than one coat of arms associated with a given surname."



Source: http://www.fleurdelis.com/nofamilycrest....