How can i find my families real coat of arms? not one from those pay sites that seems fake?

Question

How can i find my families real coat of arms? not one from those pay sites that seems fake?

Answer 1

Coats of arms were originally designed so knights could tell each other apart. They were given to individuals, not surnames or families. If, for instance, every knight named "Smith" (Carpenter, Baker, Johnson . . .) used the same coat of arms, there would be a crowd of knights riding around with the same coat of arms painted on their shields. It would be as confusing as a football game where both sides wore blue uniforms and all the players were number 12.

What you CAN do is trace your family back to the 1400's. That would take you a while, but you asked. Then, if you run into anyone who had a C of A, copy it off. It won't be "yours", of course; it will belong to that person's distant heir, but - you can show it off, just like you could show off a picture of the castle he used to live in, even though the castle too is now owned by your 16th cousin five times removed. (Or by the National Trust, or by the fellow the Duke gambled with.) It is all a part of your family history.

The ones on the pay sites are real enough, usually. They were once issued to someone with that surname. If your surname is Smith, you have dozens to choose from.

Answer 2

You're opening a huge can of worms.  Don't go there!

Opinions on this subject are very divided.  Lots of thumbs down get given on this subject, presumably by people who have been to one of these paysites you mention and have a framed certificate with their coat of arms and surname history sat on their wall somewhere.  I guess they don't like being mocked by those of us who know the truth behind the granting of coats of arms.

The short answer is that if you don't already know your families coat of arms, then you probably aren't entitled to one.  They were only ever distributed to individuals, not families, and passed along the male line only to the eldest son.  Just because your name is "Smith" or "Jones" does not mean that you are entitled to that particular coat of arms, just any legitimate descendants of the original Mr Smith or Mr Jones.  As you say though, plenty of websites out there will sell you a "Smith" or "Jones" coat of arms to stick on your wall so you can pretend to be related from the landed gentry, but that's all it is, make-believe.

If you have several thousand pounds to spare, you do what Elton John did a few years ago, design your own coat of arms, register it with the Royal College of Arms, and, hey presto, you have a real legitimate family crest for you and any future male heirs.  Most people don't have the money and just buy a fake one and pretend that it is theirs.  And why not?

Answer 3

I think you have already been made aware by the above posters that the problem with those merhcants of deceit, that sell coats of arms, sell them like they belong to everybody with a particular surname.

Frequently, they are valid coats of arms that were granted to someone and usually with the surname you see above or below the coat of arms.

There might have been, for instance, 15 different individual men with the same surname, not all necessarily related, each granted their own coat of arms, all different.

No one peddler who sells them on the internet, at airports, at shopping malls, in magazines and solicit by mail will 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 more than one person with the same surname from more than one national origin were granted coats of arms.

In that case, they will have one of each when in fact there might have been several of each.

Now, it is quite possible for you to have legitimate claim to more than one in your family tree.  When I use the word "claim" that does not mean you are entitled to any one of them.  It just means that after doing research and you find more than one ancestor that were granted a coat of arms and if you have a book printed or even published on your family history, it is quite valid for you to put pictures of your ancestors' coats of arms in your book.  It would not be valid, however, for you to put in your book those that were granted to persons with the same surname as your ancestors.

If you are American and you have any English lines that goes back to early colonial days in the American South, you have an good chance of having several in your family tree.  Actually, some in the South have the ones their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago and they aren't those dinky little walnut plaques that people have on their den wall or over their fireplace.

AS a rule, they don't display them. They aren't any good for buying groceries and not only that for buying GASOLINE. Walmart won't take them either.

See the links below, one from the British College of Arms(they grant coat of arms) and the other from the most prestigious genealogical organizaiton in the U.S., The National Genealogical Society.

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

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

Answer 4

You may not have one.  The only way to be reasonably sure is to be able to develop a family tree going back many generations, to the time when arms were used, and hope that one of the branches lands on someone who had arms (most people didn't).

Answer 5

I'm glad you have reached the conclusion that the pay sites are largely fakes. I can only suggest that if you were entitled to display a coat of arms, you would know about it, it's not really something to be mislaid or forgotten. Not everyone with the same name as a man who was granted the right to arms, shares that same right.

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 6

Some places will try to sell you a coat of arms that may not be for your exact family but for a family with the same or similar name. Here is one place to try: http://www.traceit.com/  They give a simple description of the coat of arms.

I usually look at this book in our local library: Sir Bernard Burke:  "The General Armory", London 1884. A nice thing about this book is that it gives a bit of the history and location telling when and where the arms were granted. This helps to decide if which are the arms for your family.

Remember that some families don't have a coat of arms. In this case, I look for a good looking, easy to draw coat of arms and use it. Of course, I say something like "this coat of arms was granted to a family with the same name, and may not be our family coat of arms."

Some folks take all this way too seriously - - - maybe get some ideas and make up your own arms! This is supposed to be a hobby and it is supposed to be fun.

Answer 7

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 you can prove that YOU are the rightful heir.  Not all descendants of the person it was granted to are entitled to it.  If you are not the rightful heir, then you cannot claim it.  If you are the rightful heir, 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

one more, Michael to back up the previous posters-

they seem fake, because they are.  They would be valid for the persons authorized to use them, not others.

It is a WHOLE lot more fun (and legitimate) to trace your real ancestors, regardless of their "status".